NABU2022-1-01 09 marges

– 1 –

ISSN 0989-5671

2022

N° 1 (mars)

NOTES BRÈVES

1) The location of Umm Chatil: a note on BM 116618 — A clay cone fragment currently in the British Museum (museum no. 116618, CDLI no. P232543) and carrying an inscription of Gudea of Lagash (RIME 3/1.17.26. ex. 13, cf. Steible 1991, I:279), is said to derive from a locality named ‘Umm Chatil’, to be located somewhere in the vicinity of Tall Zurghul, eastern Dhī Qar governorate in southern Iraq. This toponym is only attested in connection with BM 116618, and the only information as to its exact location ultimately derives from the files of the Expedition of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania to Ur from 1922 to 1934. On the catalogue card of the corresponding finds number, U 299, we read ‘Found at Umm Chatil, lat. 31·22 N, long. 46·35 E, 4 or 5 miles E of Zerghul’ (Sollberger 1965, 35).1) The piece was discovered by and presented to the expedition at Ur during the first field season in 1922–23 by Major L.M. Yetts (erroneously recorded as ‘Vetts’ in Sollberger 1965 and several later publications), British army officer and then-political advisor to local authorities in and around Nasiriyah (unknown, 1962, 243–244).

The note on the catalogue card provides two separate, relatively congruent locations. If we assume that the datum used by Yetts is closely comparable to WGS84 used by Google Earth today, the coordinates 31° 22ʹ N, 46° 35ʹ E translate into a location ca. 8.5 kilometres due east of Tall Zurghul, which agrees roughly with the distance of 4 to 5 miles (6.4–8 km) east of the same site. At the time of discovery, said location appears to have been a relatively barren area removed from the marshes of the Haur Ghamūqa to the south and west of Tall Zurghul. The coordinates clearly form the basis for an approximate location of Umm Chatil given in previous versions of the ANE.kmz2) by Pedersén, but no identifiable archaeological feature can be found there.

Detailed contemporary maps available online, namely sheets of the British Mesopotamia Expeditionary Force (M.E.F.) ½-inch Mesopotamia-series, do not extend into this area, but some topographical features are included on a 1942 US Army ¼-inch map sheet copied from a 1922 British Mandate period original (US Army Map Service, 1942). This includes a tall, conspicuous mound around 2,500 m north of the coordinate location and some 8,000 m east and slightly north of Tall Zurghul, which is named ‘al Machātil’. The corresponding location in the Atlas of the Archaeological Sites in Iraq (DGAM 1979, Map 72 no. 10) gives Tall al-Majātil ( لتاجملا لت ). A mound in the same location also appears on modern web mapping services as ‘Tall al Majatil’ ( لتاجملا لت ) (OpenStreetMap)3) and ‘Tall al-Majātil’ ( لت

لتاجملا ) (GeoNames).4)

N.A.B.U. 2022 nᵒ 1 (mars)

– 2 –

When juxtaposing the two toponyms, it is quite easy to see how ‘al-Majātil’ ( لتاجملا ) could have been misheard or -read as ‘Umm Jātil’ ( لتاج مأ *) at the time when BM 116618 was discovered. While the former appears a regular nominal form of an Arabic verbal root, the etymology is not clear to us. We have not been able to find any references to the latter toponym, which appears to carry no obvious meaning. The form ‘Umm Chaled’ (‘mother of Khālid’) given by Braun-Holzinger (1996, 15) seems erroneous, and does not appear anywhere else in the literature.

In light of the phonetical similarity of the above placenames and the overall agreement in location relative to Tall Zurghul as described in the catalogue cards of the Ur excavations, the identification of ‘Umm Chatil’ with Tall al-Majātil seems, at least to the present authors, certain (cf. Rattenborg et al. 2021, UCH). As no survey of the mound has been undertaken as far as we have been able to ascertain, whether to consider Tall al-Majātil, with the visible mound extending over an area of a modest 6 ha, a settlement of any importance during the reign of Gudea of Lagash remains anyone’s guess at this point. Not the least because the inscription on the clay cone concerns a temple at Tall Zurghul, and so may have ended up at Tall al-Majātil entirely by accident (e.g. Suter 2000, 36–38).

Area around Tall al-Majātil. See inset with extent marker for general location. Background map @ 2021 Maxar, @ TomTom https://www.bing.com/maps. © GLoW Map version date: 14 January 2022

Notes 1. See object entry at http://www.ur-online.org/subject/329/ for a scan of the original card (accessed 15 Oct. 2021). 2. https://www.lingfil.uu.se/research/assyriology/earth/ (accessed 19 October 2021). 3. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2485672526 (accessed 19 October 2021). 4. https://www.geonames.org/7011811/tall-al-majatil.html (accessed 19 October 2021).

Bibliography

BRAUN-HOLZINGER, E. A. 1996. “Verschleppte Bau-und Weihinschriften der Herrscher von Lagaš”. Acta Sumerologica 19: 1–18.

Directorate General of Antiquities 1976. Atlas of the Archaeological Sites in Iraq. Baghdad: Directorate General of Antiquities.

PEDERSÉN, O. 2007. “ANE Placemarks for Google Earth” (ANE.kmz). http://www.lingfil.uu.se/research/assyriology/earth/.

RATTENBORG, R., C. JOHANSSON, S. NETT, G. R. SMIDT, and J. ANDERSSON. 1 November 2021. ”Cuneiform Inscriptions Geographical Site Index” (CIGS v. 1.4). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5642899.

SOLLBERGER, E. 1965. Ur Excavations Texts Vol. VIII: Royal Inscriptions, Part II. London. STEIBLE, H. 1991. Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. FAOS 9. Stuttgart.


– 3 –

Survey Party Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force. 1920. “Nasirīyah. No. 3 I/SW”. 1:126720. Mesopotamia. Baghdad: Survey Party Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force.

SUTER, C. 2000. Gudea’s Temple Building: The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler in Text and Image. CM 17. Groningen.

UNKNOWN. 1962. “In Memoriam”. Journal of The Royal Central Asian Society 49, no. 3–4: 242–47. US Army Map Service. 1942. “H-38 E: Nāsirīya:. 1:235,440. Iraq and Iran 1:235,440 A.M.S. K501 (G.S.G.S.

3919). Washington, D.C.: Army Map Service, U.S. Army.

Carolin JOHANSSON <[email protected]> Rune RATTENBORG <[email protected]> Department of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala University (SWEDEN)

2) Observations on ŠÁM and KI in the archaic text corpus* — In the note on BA, GI and GU₇ in the archaic text corpus (NABU 2018/93), it was pointed out in footnote no. 17 that some subgroups of the verbs discussed there require separate treatment. This is to a certain extent done here1). Although only tentative interpretations can be offered, at least some misconceptions can be dispelled. All combinations of BA, GI and GU₇ with ŠÁM and KI, ŠÁM and KI alone as well as the term ŠÁM.KI will be examined. This is less about the signs ŠÁM and KI in general than about their meaning as possible verbs or “verb modifiers”, i.e. essentially their role in summands (“n KI”), “intermediate subscripts” and subscripts. With KI, one primarily thinks of a noun; ŠÁM, to anticipate the obvious question, has nothing to do with the Sumerian verb ŠÁM = sa₁₀ (to buy; to sell)2), but is originally also a noun. Before the actual evaluation, some characteristic properties of KI and ŠÁM are presented. Ad KI:

For KI in field texts, cf. OBO 160/1, 211–213 as well as a3/TRIBUTE 59. KI occurs as a constituent of personal names (É KI: MS 2863/27), occupational titles (AN ḪI KI NUN: a3/OFFICIALS 27) and place names (NUN KI: a3/GEOGR 1, iii10); it is also part of product designations (?) (KI KÙ in c1/140, NE KI in c1/193). KI turns up in several terms that can be found in school texts: KI A (c21/228); BU KI (c21/298; cf. m1/1–4 and ~156); EN MÍ KI (c21/255; cf. m1/39); KAŠ EN KI (c21/261); U₄ KI (c21/220); GURUŠ KI (a3/VOCAB 1, i2). KI also occurs in terms in lexical lists other than those already mentioned (see a3/p245f.), KI? SAG (a3/TRIBUTE 84) amongst others also in the subscript of c31/150. The frequent BA KI, which appears as an independent entry in a3/TRIBUTE 92, may stand in place of a personal name (cf. W 20274,89, line 1.b33)), occur as part of a place name (a3/GEOGR 1, iii9: EN ZATU647 BA KI), may be additionally specified (a7/20493,2: BA KI, BAR) and may occur with and without indication of quantity (m3/67, rev. i1.c2: n <barley> BA KI; IM 134389, subscript: BA KI). Ad ŠÁM:

ŠÁM is a personal name (cf. c1/194), a constituent of personal names (APIN ŠÁM? [W 20817]; (ŠE) GÌR ŠÁM [c31/110]) and part of occupational titles (ŠÁM APIN [a5/9168,d (parallel to KINGAL)] and GAL ŠÁM [a6/17973,f; m3/67, iv6; cf. the “GAL occupations” in a3/Lú A (GAL ŠUBUR, GAL 1N-₅₈+BAD,…; the comparison suggests – but does not prove – that ŠÁM may not originally be considered a verb)]). ŠÁM can be additionally specified (W 20274,2: BAR, ŠÁM) and occur with and without indication of quantity (W 20274,2, subscript: n ŠÁM…; c31/91, subscript: ŠÁM PN). Ad ŠÁM.KI:

ŠÁM.KI is a place name (a3/GEOGR 2, ii5) and therefore probably also occurs as a personal name (c1/77).

The following combinations are attested:

KI BA KI GI KI c31/117 c31/174 only in c31/197 and MS 2863/29

ŠÁM BA ŠÁM GI <ŠÁM>? GU₇ ŠÁM c31/91 c1/176 only in m1/49 c1/106

BA, GI and GU₇ are “basic verbs” denoting a “delivery status”. Apart from GI, they also occur in Sumerian. Together with KI and ŠÁM, they can form a new “unit”; whether ‘GI ŠÁM’ was actually used is questionable (but not important). Two attested examples with BA:


– 4 –

[ ] |? n (‘ZÍZ’) BA KI | ŠÁM, PN (c31/91 obv.; the reverse is not preserved); m ŠE BA ŠÁM | n <ŠE> GI <ŠÁM>? (m1/49 obv. [likewise for emmer]; on the reverse there are the totals for barley [BA + GI], emmer and the sum total).

Key texts for the interpretation of ŠÁM are m4/67 and m3/26. “Because of” m4/67 ŠÁM has a concrete original meaning, because of m3/26 (and m3/83) it has an additional figurative meaning. On the obverse, m4/67 has two columns with the intermediate subscripts “ŠIM PN (= SAG.nutillû)” and “ŠÁM PN' (= EN A)”; on the reverse one reads in column i “n MÍ ŠIM” and “m <MÍ> ŠÁM”; the total in column ii is “AN.MAR, n + m MÍ, ŠÁM ŠIM”. This shows that ŠÁM and ŠIM are “equivalent” (or “belong to the same category of meaning”). ŠIM, as its graphic representation indicates (jug with additional spout/“bung hole” at the bottom and indicated contents), denotes a liquid or a vessel; the sign ŠÁM (according to its drawing a sack (?) of grain) could be the equivalent for “dry products”4) (various cereal products, on the other hand, are denoted in the total by ŠE, not ŠÁM: m3/26, subscript; also the comparison of m3/82 with m3/83 [ŠE plus ŠÁM] shows that ŠÁM generally does not denote the product as such; in m4/67 the opposite ŠIM vs. ŠE would presumably not have been clear-cut). The subscript could then be translated as “AN.MAR (a temple household in Larsa: m4/p14f.); n + m women, <who each supervise two others: m4/67 obv.>, <for the production of> liquid (ŠIM) and solid (ŠÁM) (grain) products”5). ŠÁM thus has a “tangible” original meaning. Text m3/26 has on the reverse in column i the three summands “n GU₇ | nʹ PN? BA | nʺ GI [Ø]?”, and in column ii the summing up subscript “ŠÁM; PN₁, PN₂; n + nʹ + nʺ ŠE, PN₃, PN₄”. Assuming that ŠÁM actually does not denote a PN here, this might suggest that ŠÁM be considered a verb (an expression) that stands “above” the verbs for the delivery states BA, GI, and GU₇. However, an unambiguous interpretation cannot be given. BA, GI and GU₇ could refer, for example, to bookings for a business entity, and ŠÁM to confirmation of correctness by a higher authority (“transaction duly completed, audited” or similar; for the hierarchy in administration, see NABU 2018/93, p. 148 top). Texts such as m3/60 (the verb is BA [obv.]; final subscript on the reverse: KU.ŠIM, LAGAB n ŠE, ŠÁM BA [ŠÁM is thus an addition] – <for> beer bread [(?); KU ŠIM6)], summa summarum n barley, “audited” [ŠÁM], allocated [“brought before eyes”, BA]) or c31/99 [GU₇ vs. ŠÁM] could also be understood in this sense. ŠÁM thus possessed a (much more frequently used) figurative meaning in addition to the basic meaning. In the archaic administrative texts, when two verbs, each denoted by a sign, are placed next to each other, they obviously describe two independent actions or states of affairs7).

Further examples to clarify the meaning of ŠÁM: ŠÁM occurs primarily in texts dealing with cereals (for exceptions see below)8). Text c31/91 (see

above) shows almost certainly that ŠÁM qualifies the delivery status (BA). Also c31/197 (subscript: n ŠE, BA; ŠÁM) and presumably c1/176 point in this direction. Larger quantities of grain are (further) found in m3/60 (ŠÁM BA), m3/83 (PN, n ŠE, KU.ŠIM, ŠÁM, BA), m3/61 (without verb) or m3/82 (ŠÁM KU.ŠIM, GU₇). GU₇ usually refers to a product (cf. NABU 2018/93, note 7); here, however, it is presumably further specified by ŠÁM (so SÁM is not a product in this case). The situation in c1/106 is comparable. In c1/137, small quantities of cereal products are listed; the subscript reads ŠÁM GU₇ (?; the photograph does not allow a clear decision). The grain products were probably not bought or sold, but produced and consumed. In m3/299) (n ŠE, 37 months, DUB.LAGAB.LAGAB, KU.ŠIM ŠÁM) ŠÁM qualifies the barley used for the production of “beer bread” over three years; again, everything argues against “to buy” or “to sell”.

In the subscript of W 20274,2 (8 BAR ŠÁM, EZEN×SU, 3N₅₇+NUNUZ [a PN]), the eight persons mentioned in the text are referred to as “BAR ŠÁM” (ŠÁM here is probably not a product made by or for those individuals). The individuals were hardly bought or sold “in addition” (“BAR”: M. Green, Animal husbandry at Uruk in the archaic period, JNES 39 [1980] 6–7), but were put on stand-by (in whatever form); see also Englund, OBO 160/1, 177.

In a5/9123,k (n GUKKAL? ŠÁM P[N]) ŠÁM could specify the sheep (“sheep for fattening” (?); present-day concentrated feed for sheep contains barley and oats) as well as the (checked) delivery status.

Similarly, a5/9655,g (7 NUN | 1 [Ø]? (cdli: X [ ]) ŠÁM | 2 GUKKAL | SU? || 10) could suggest that ŠÁM is a shorthand spelling for sheep for fattening (the interpretation remains uncertain, however).

On the meaning of KI:


– 5 –

The subscript of c31/117 reads “m GU₇ | n KI || m + n KAŠ, mʹ BA | nʹ GI || mʹ + nʹ KAŠ || m + n + mʹ + nʹ LAGAB KAŠ”. It contains KI in addition to the three standard verbs BA, GI and GU₇. Since GU₇ (“debited”) and KI form one group (besides the second group [BA | GI]), this could suggest (not prove) that KI also denotes something that is no longer present (a delivery made by the supplier that is not yet debited). The easiest way would be to think of a delivery that falls outside the scope of the usual delivery system (rations, etc.). As KI means, among other things, “field” (cf. also a6/10602; m1/1), it could be an unscheduled handover made outside the city (a real interpretation is not possible here either). As shown above, KI can occur together with BA and GI. In this case, BA and GI designate, as usual, the delivery status, here referring to the unscheduled handover KI10). ‘GU₇ KI’ should not exist; neither does it exist, which hopefully is not a coincidence11):

m GU₇ + n BA KI = m + n ŠE (on the part of the supplier, the KI handover has been made, but it is not yet debited [GU7]; it is still “in front of the eyes” [BA] of the receiver): m3/67 rev.; m GU₇ + n BA KI = [Ø]? GU₇ (in this case KI is already debited): c31/174 rev. Addenda:

a) Attested sums with BA, GI or GU₇ plus ŠÁM or KI (if not already mentioned):

m SAG + n BA KI = m + n ŠE (likewise for emmer) c31/151; m [ ] + n BA KI = m + n UDU BAR MS 4503; m BA KI + n PN + … = m + n + … ŠE m3/49; m ŠE ḪI.gunû + n ŠE BA KI = m + n ḪI.gunû ŠE (groats) c1/117; [m?] GU₇ + n BA KI = [ ][m?] + n? (emmer) c1/104; m GU₇ + n KI BÙLUG = m + n (malt) c1/155 (BÙLUG can hardly mean “malt” [munu₄] here, since malt is already designated as such by the numeral sign).

b) Attested pairs of opposites (if not already mentioned):

m ŠE BA, SZÁM vs. n GI KI c31/197;

on the fragment m3/34 the verb GI is found on the obverse, BA ŠÁM on the reverse; in c21/103 GI belongs instead to a personal name (if not, cf. the opposite BA ŠÁM vs. GI in m1/49). The KI in question in c31/52, obv. 4.a should, judging from the structure of the text, belong to a personal name.

Not all attestations (apart from sums and pairs of opposites) have been cited. In most cases, the ŠÁM and KI passages are consistent with the interpretations considered, but – as is to be expected – unclear cases remain (see already above [“sheep for fattening”]). Examples: the meaning of KI in c1/142 or in the subscript of m4/3 (cf. on this m4/1, ii1). In c31/42 and MS 4513, KI could refer to a short-term provision of asses (KIŠ). “[ ] KI” in W 20817 remains uncertain; it could denote the delivery, but also belong to a personal name. “MAŠ KI” could be a PN; in connection with sheep, it occurs three times: MS 2390 (n UDU | GI MAŠ KI | PN), MS 2433 (n UDU | GI, MAŠ KI) and MS 3880 (n GÁN | m UDU MAŠ KI | PN). It is conceivable (especially because of the positioning of the signs in MS 2390) that GI belongs to the personal name in the first two cases mentioned12). The subscript “[Ø]? BA KI” of the fragment W 21733,6 would refer to a delivery of, among other items, the dairy product GÁRA. In W 16114, the subscript “BA KI” (?) [cdli: BA X KI] would characterise three products (?), all of which contain the sign DIN. “BU, NAGAR A, BA SZÁM, EZEN GÁN” (MS 3003, obv. iii2) cannot be translated unambiguously (BU, NAGAR A seems to be a personal name).

Notes * Abbreviations as in NABU 2018/93. – CDLJ: Cuneiform Digital Library Journal. – PN: person(al name); (ED:

Early Dynastic; PE: Proto-Euphratic). 1. The (PE) writing phases Uruk IV and Uruk III were taken into account; the Sumerian archaic texts (ED I–II)

were examined but remain largely unconsidered. 2. In that sense, however, Monaco (“purchase”: c1/note 35; catalogue entries on the texts c1/137, ~176 and

c21/103; “sale” (?): c1/p269), Englund (“exchange goods”: catalogue entry on m4/64; “(slaves (?) to be traded (?)”: catalogue entry on m4/67) and Nissen et al. (“Tausch (?)”: Frühe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung im alten Vorderen Orient [1990] 67).

3. Further examples: 1N₅₇ PN | 2N₅₇ BA KI = 3 DUG (a7/20493,7);… | 6 BA.KI | 1 NAR A | X[ ] | 9 N₂ | [ ] (MS 2862/8+MS 2900/8); see NABU 2018/93, note 17.


– 6 –

4. Cf. “pasta” (farinaceous products) in Italian: spaghetti, but also cake. 5. In the catalogue entry on m4/67 the text is interpreted differently (see already note 2). Whether ŠÁM is part of

the name in m4/48, m4/49 and (?) c31/86 (EN A ŠÁM) cannot be determined with certainty. 6. Suggestion from Monaco, CDLJ 2005:1, p. 1; differently m4/67 (catalogue entry) and a2/no. 50. 7. Modal verbs etc. may have been used, but were presumably not written in archaic administrative texts. In the

subscript of m4/3, “BA GI; ŠE n” means “<sum of all> BA (and) GI (items): n barley”. In a7/20511,11, “GI.GI BA GU₇” means “<products> that (Mr) GI.GI has allocated [BA] are (already) debited [GU₇]”; see on this NABU 2018/93, p. 149, item “b”.

8. Counting is done in the systems used to note capacity measures of grain (Š, Šʹ, Šʺ, Š* [a5/p20]): m1/49; b/82; however, if there is no error (but there probably is), counting can also be done in the sexagesimal system (m4/64): n ŠÁM, AN.MAR PA (the “emmer strokes” [cf. the numeral N₄] are attached to the sexagesimal numbers to indicate that there is not only barley but also emmer in the “sack” [?, ŠÁM; in this case ŠÁM would be a unit of measurement; this seems unlikely, cf. on that Nissen et al. (see note 2) 178]); cf. ATFU, note 283.

9. Cf. Englund, OBO 160/1, 182. 10. Monaco, CDLJ 2005:1, § 7, comes to a different conclusion for BA KI: “rations not delivered”, “locally

(supplied) rations”; the sum of the entries he refers to in § 7.4 is not correct, cf. Englund, OBO 160/1, fig. 57, p. 163 and note 382. Furthermore, BA in lines i1.b1 and i1.b2 does not denote a ‘verbal expression’ (“rations” from BA, to allot [in Sumerian]), but is part of personal names.

11. GU₇ (“debited”) can only refer to a product, but not to a (type of) delivery (KI). KI itself denotes a delivery of a product that must be named (in the given example: beer), just as, for example, BA denotes the delivery status of a (named) product.

12. A particularly puzzling text is c1/169; here the length and width of two fields are listed, whereby each of the four entries is accompanied by a personal name (?); accordingly URU.KI, the counterpart of [ ].EN, is also to be regarded as a personal name. – DUG KI in c1/207 is most likely a personal name; possibly this also applies to DUG? KI in c1/174 and KAŠ KI in c1/208 (cf. on the other hand KAŠ KI KÙ in the product list c1/140).

Erlend GEHLKEN <[email protected]> Universität Frankfurt/Main (GERMANY)

3) Éblaïte gú-a-tum : un bilan provisoire — Vu ses liens étroits avec le culte et certaines divinités, l’éblaïte gú-a-tum (var. gú-a-du) est l’un des termes les plus importants pour la compréhension correcte des rituels royaux et en même temps l’un des plus difficiles à expliquer. Depuis l’édition des textes de ARET XI, de nombreuses interprétations ont été proposées pour gú-a-tum : « force » (Conti 1990 : 146) ; « crochet » (Fronzaroli 1993 : 27, 151) ; « vase ; gobelet » (Pomponio 1985 : 246 ; Pettinato 1992 : 78-79 et 189 ; Conti 1993 : 100 ; Pasquali 2005 : 135-136 et 2008 ; Archi 2019 et 2021 : 23 et n. 57) ; « instrument qui sert à sectionner le cordon ombilical » (Bonechi 2016 : 62-63) ; « collier » (Archi 2018 : 47 et 276). En particulier, dans ces dernières années, on a assisté à un intérêt de plus en plus croissant pour ce mot énigmatique avec toute une série de nouvelles hypothèses qui parfois ne prennent pas en compte l’ensemble des attestations et des données disponibles. Le but de cette note est d’essayer de mettre de l’ordre dans cette vexata quaestio, sans avoir la prétention de fournir une solution définitive à ce problème, qui à ce jour encore nous échappe. Pour ce faire, nous utiliserons tout d’abord les contextes connus, où gú-a-tum fait l’objet d’une offrande, en les répertoriant selon les noms des divinités concernées.

dA-da-ma et dTU :

[1] ARET III 337 r. VI : 2ʹ-7ʹ : [1* na₄* siki*] níg-dug-DU / gú-a-tum / dA-da-ma / wa / dTU / ʾÀ-da-NIki ;

[2] TM.75.G.1776 r. IX : 1-5 : 1 na₄ siki / níg-dug-DU / gú-a-tum / dA-da-ma / ʾÀ-da-NIki.

Dans ces deux extraits, on enregistre une mesure na₄ de laine pour le níg-dug-DU du gú-a-tum destiné aux déesses dA-da-ma et dTU de la ville de ʾÀ-da-NIki, siège d’un important sanctuaire des divinités chthoniennes. L’absence du numéral avant gú-a-tum semble nous indiquer un seul objet. Malgré les doutes de Bonechi (2016 : 61, n. 51, « I see no evidence for this »), il est évident que ces passages se réfèrent à une action rituelle.

Malheureusement, le sumérien níg-dug-DU est aussi énigmatique que gú-a-tum. Le terme a été récemment interprété comme « portable jar » (Bonechi 2016 : 64), ou « case, box » (Archi 2021 : 17 et n. 42). Ces traductions reposent essentiellement sur un passage d’un texte administratif encore inédit : [3] TM.75.2417 r. XVI : 2-11 : 1 siki na₄ / 1 éš:kiri / 1 KIN siki / kin₅-aka / 4 níg-dug-DU / 4 gu₄ / šu-mu-taka₄ / dKU-ra / si-in /


– 7 –

NE-na-áški (cité par Archi 2019), où la sortie d’une mesure de laine sert à la réalisation de quatre níg-dug-DU pour les bœufs du chariot cérémoniel qui doit conduire le roi d’Ébla près du Mausolée des ancêtres à NE-na-áški. Toutefois, si l’utilisation de la laine en rapport à la fabrication de conteneurs n’est pas trop évidente, la traduction « covering/ribbon », proposée en alternative par Archi (2019), ne semble pas non plus convenir au terme níg-dug-DU. D’ailleurs, on ne peut suivre Archi (2019) même pas quand il affirme que « the verb kin₅-aka requires an object not in metal, therefore in wool », étant donné que kin₅-aka est, en revanche, régulièrement employé en relation à la fabrication de tous les objets d’artisanat, y compris les objets en métal (Pasquali 2005 : 5-6).

De plus, bien que dans la liste lexicale bilingue éblaïte l’entrée níg-dug-DU (VE 6) n’ait pas de traduction sémitique, le sens de récipient, généralement attribué à ce terme sumérien, repose aussi sur la glose de VE 106 níg-dug = gàr-ʾà-tum, pour laquelle Conti (1990 : 79) a proposé une comparaison avec le rare terme hébraïque *qallaḥat, qu’il traduit de façon générique par « vase », mais qui, en revanche, signifie plutôt « chaudron ; casserole ». En somme, il s’agissait bien d’un récipient de cuisson (Cathcart 1972 : 57-58). De Moor a cru reconnaître aussi ce même terme à Ougarit dans la graphie qlḥ, qu’il considère comme un théonyme : le « deified cook-pot » (de Moor 1970 : 318). Si la proposition de Conti peut être retenue, alors on peut difficilement invoquer la glose de VE 106 à l’appui de l’interprétation de níg-dug-DU comme « portable jar » ou « case, box ». À un objet en métal semble renvoyer aussi l’attestation de níg-dug-DU dans la « ED Metal List » (MEE 3 26 r. VII : 1), étant donné que dans la source mésopotamienne de la liste ce terme sumérien est remplacé par NIN-úgururuda, qui, comme me le signale gentiment G. Marchesi, peut être interprété comme un objet en métal, voire un « vase ».

À mon avis, toutefois, il n’est pas du tout certain que dans tous les contextes éblaïtes, et en particulier dans [1-2], níg-dug-DU indique un objet. Le terme semble plutôt se référer à un opérateur cultuel qui a accompli une tâche concernant l’objet gú-a-tum lors d’une cérémonie liée aux déesses dA-da-ma et dTU. La mesure na₄ représenterait alors la rétribution que l’on donne à cet opérateur pour sa prestation. Un passage d’un texte encore inédit semble, lui aussi, nous orienter vers cette conclusion. Il s’agit de [4] TM.75.G.1946 r. II : 7-16 : 1 túg-NI.NI 2 KIN siki 1 dam kin₅-aka maš-da-bù 4 bal siki 1 dumu-nita níg-dug-DU (cité par Archi 2019), où un tissu précieux et de la laine sont donnés à une femme qui a réalisé le maš-da-bù, tandis que par parallélisme 4 mesures bal de laine sont la rétribution d’un jeune homme (1 dumu-nita) qui a accompli l’action exprimée par le terme níg-dug-DU. Cette possibilité est prise en compte par Bonechi (2016 : 61) aussi qui traduit níg-dug-DU de [1-2] par « the (women in charge of) the portable jar ». Quelle que soit la signification précise du terme, compte tenu de l’absence de l’indication dam ou dumu-munus qui précède presque toujours les termes indiquant les noms de fonctions féminines, je considérerais plutôt ce personnage anonyme comme un opérateur cultuel masculin, ce qui semble être confirmé par le passage [4].

À mon avis, on ne peut pas exclure que níg-dug-DU soit en rapport sémantique avec GIŠ-dug-DU (voir en dernier Pasquali 2020 : 404), un terme pareillement énigmatique, mais pour lequel on peut citer, dans les listes lexicales mésopotamiennes, l’équivalence gišdug-gub(DU)-ba = kannu ša mê et kannu ša maštî, « metal potstand or structure to support containers with pointed bottom » (CAD, K, 154_156 ; voir aussi Waetzoldt 2001 : 194-195).

dIšḫara :

[5] MEE 12 18 f. X : 15 – XI : 4 : 1 zi-rí siki / níg-ba / gú-a-du / dBAD-mí / U₉-gú-a-áški ; [6] ARET XX 8 (2) : ⸢1⸣ na₄ siki / 1 dam / šu-mu-taka₄ / 1 gú-a-tum / dGÁxSIG₇-iš / Má-NEki.

Ces deux contextes mettent en relation le gú-a-tum avec deux hypostases de la déesse Išḫara, celle de la ville de U₉-gú-a-áški et celle de la ville de Má-NEki. Une mesure différente de laine est la rétribution pour l’opérateur cultuel qui a offert (níg-ba) ou livré (dans ce cas, il s’agit d’une femme : 1 dam) le gú-a-du aux déesses concernées. Dans ces cas, les termes níg-ba [5] et šu-mu-taka₄ [6] semblent remplacer níg-dug-DU. De ce fait, Bonechi (2016 : 61, n. 50) envisage la possibilité que dans [5] níg-ba ne soit qu’une lecture erronée pour níg-dug-DU.

dBa-ra-ma :

[7] ARET XI 1 (14) : 1 da-ga-a-tum / e am / ⸢gú⸣-⸢a⸣-[ti-i]š / dBa-⸢ra⸣-[ma] / [ma-lik-tum] / ⸢šu⸣-⸢mu⸣-taka₄ ;

[8] ARET XI 2 (16) : 1 da-ga-a-tum / e am / 1 gú-a-ti-iš / dBa-ra-ma ;


– 8 –

[9] MEE 7 34 r. XVIII : 7ʹ-14ʹ : 5 kù:babbar / šu-bal-aka / 1 kù-sig₁₇ 1 kù-sal / níg-ba / Da-bur-da-mu / al₆ / gú-a-ti / dBa-ra-ma.

Dans [7-8], deux extraits tirés des textes du rituel royal, un objet indiqué par la graphie da-ga-a-tum est offert par la reine pour le gú-a-ti-iš (datif-directif) de la déesse dBa-ra-ma. On retrouve le même contexte dans le passage [9] provenant du compte-rendu annuel de métaux contemporaine du texte le plus récent du rituel royal [8].

dGa-na-na

[10] TM.75.2397 f. V : 21-26 : 2 udu mu-DU gú-a-tum dGa-na-na é en (cité par Archi 2021 : 23).

Deux moutons sont offerts pour l’« apport » (mu-DU) du gú-a-tum de la déesse dGa-na-na (pour cette déesse voir Pasquali 2013).

dGú-ša-ra-tum :

[11] ARET XII 344 r. IV : 2ʹ-4ʹ : 10 lá-3 an-dù[l] igi-DUB-SÙ šu-SÙ DU-SÙ kù:babbar / 10 lá-3 gú-a-tum zabar / dGú-ša-ra-tum.

Ce passage nous confirme que la graphie gú-a-tum indique bien un objet. En effet, on y enregistre la sortie de sept images cultuelles et de sept gú-a-tum en bronze en tant qu’offrande aux dGú-ša-ra-tum, les sept déesses préposées aux naissances (pour lesquelles, voir Pasquali 2006).

dʾÀ-da :

[12] TM.75.G.1504 f. III : 1-2: 1 gú-a-tum/lú dʾÀ-da (cité par Archi 2019).

Cette annotation très concise est le seul cas à ce jour connu où l’objet gú-a-tum est du ressort d’une divinité masculine. J’écarterais la possibilité que la graphie se réfère à un terme différent.

En synthèse et en conclusion, on peut signaler qu’un indice apparemment important pour la compréhension du mot gú-a-tum nous est fourni par la glose de la liste lexicale bilangue éblaïte attestant l’équivalence géšpu = gú-a-tum (VE 521). Le sumérogramme géšpu, signifie « force », mais aussi « arme » ou « outil », voire une espèce de « grappin » utilisé par les lutteurs, et correspond, dans les textes mésopotamiens, à l’akkadien (ḫ)umāšu avec la même signification (voir CAD, U/W, 98). En s’appuyant sur ces éléments, Conti (1990 : 146) a cru pouvoir expliquer la graphie gú-a-tum à travers la racine sém. occ. *kwḥ, « force », connue en hébreu et en araméen (DRS 10, 1189-1190). Toutefois, cette étymologie ne peut pas être retenue, parce que le sens abstrait de « force » s’accommode très mal aux passages administratifs et aux textes du rituel royal, où gú-a-tum se réfère – nous l’avons vu – à un objet en métal. Fronzaroli (1993 : 27, 151), en supposant, lui aussi, une connexion entre le terme de la liste lexicale et celui des textes, nous offre la traduction « crochet », qui toutefois ne semble pas non plus être à même d’expliquer de façon convaincante la relation de cet objet avec le culte.

Très récemment, à ce propos, Bonechi (2016 : 62) a affirmé péremptoirement que le gú-a-tum des textes « has nothing to do » avec la glose de VE 521 et a proposé qu’il s’agissait plutôt du « local name » de l’instrument qui sert à sectionner le cordon ombilical. Par conséquent, Bonechi interprète la graphie éblaïte comme « gulāttum < *gulām-t-um, from a root *glm, ‘to cut’, attested in Arabic, Geʿez and Śaḥri, from which terms for ‘scissors, clippers’ derive », en considérant en même temps que la traduction « vase », proposée par d’autres auteurs, « trivialize the contextes » (Bonechi 2016 : 63). Il s’avère, en revanche, que, contrairement à ce que Bonechi pense, gú-a-tum dans les textes aussi est la lecture sémitique de géšpu, comme nous le démontre le passage suivant :

[13] TM.75.G.2653 r. X : 9-19 : 1 na₄ siki 1 kù-sal kù:babbar géšpu dAMA-ra En-na-ì pa:šeš dKU-ra šu-ba₄-ti 1 na₄ siki 1 kù-sal kù:babbar maš-da-bù é dGa-na-na (cité par Archi 2021 : 16),

où l’objet est du ressort de la déesse Išḫara, exactement comme dans [5-6]. La sortie d’une mesure na₄ de laine et d’un kù-sal en métal précieux ainsi que la concomitance des offrandes pour la célébration du maš-da-bù près du temple de la déesse dGa-na-na lie cet extrait aux autres passages concernant le gú-a-tum et cités ci-dessus. De plus, l’étymologie de Bonechi présente un problème d’ordre philologique : si gú-a-tum tirait son origine de la racine *glm, dans l’extrait [11] où ces objets sont livrés au nombre de sept, la troisième consonne radicale m serait réapparue dans la graphie devant la ā longue de la désinence du pluriel féminin, comme c’est le cas, par


– 9 –

exemple, pour le terme ra-zi-tum (sing.) – ra-zi-ma-tum (plu.), « pleureuse(s) » (pour lequel, voir Pasquali – Mangiarotti 1999). Si gú-a-tum doit vraiment indiquer l’un des outils professionnels des déesses préposées aux naissances, alors il aurait été bien plus judicieux de le traduire par « forceps », un mot qui fait référence à un domaine sémantique plus proche de celui du sumérogramme géšpu (ce que Bonechi 2016 : 63, n. 64, exclut sous prétexte que « such dangerous tools cannot have been the ordinary symbols of the goddesses who protected women in labour and newborns »). Pourtant, même cette interprétation semble aller à l’encontre de deux faits majeurs : 1) dans [12] le gú-a-tum est offert au dieu de l’orage dʾÀ-da et s’explique mal l’offrande d’un outil de travail de sage-femme à une divinité masculine (voir déjà Pasquali 2020 : 599, n. 12) ; 2) dans certains inventaires d’objets artisanaux, le gú-a-tum est cité avec des vases. On peut voir les passages suivants : [14] TM.75.G.272 r. II : 5-6 : 2 bur-kak kù-sig₁₇/1 gú-a-tum kù-sig₁₇ (je remercie le prof. A. Archi pour la collation) ; [15] TM.75.G.1291 f. 6-8 : 1 si gu₄ zabar 1 gú-a-tum zabar 1 níg-bànda zabar ; [16] TM.75.G.10077 f. X : 6-10 : 20 gín kù:babbar nu₁₁-za 20 gú-a-tum 4 ma-na 30 kù:babbar 1 GIŠ-šú 1 níg-bànda (cités par Archi 2019). Si le gú-a-tum est un vase, alors une étymologie convaincante et conforme aux règles du syllabaire éblaïte est le sém. *kwt, attesté dans l’akk. kūt- et dans l’oug. kt, des termes indiquant un type de vase métallique (DRS 10, 1203). Si un vase peut bien être dans certains cas un outil de sage-femme, il s’avère plus difficile de concilier cette traduction avec la signification du sumérien géšpu. Même si dans les textes hittites géšpu peut indiquer un type de conteneur rituel en forme de « poing » lié au culte du dieu de l’orage (Özkan Şavaş 2008 : 657 et sv, avec bibliographie), il nous semble difficile de pouvoir accepter cette signification pour les textes éblaïtes aussi. En tout cas, si le gú-a-tum est un vase, il faudra exclure l’interprétation de « portable jar » pour níg-dug-DU (Bonechi 2016 : 64), parce qu’il ne semble pas envisageable qu’un pot puisse être employé pour le transport d’un autre pot. La question reste ouverte.

Bibliographie

ARCHI, A. 2018, Administrative Texts: Allotments of Clothing for the Palace Personnel, ARET XX, Wiesbaden.

ARCHI, A., 2019, « Minima Eblaitica 24: níg-gú-DU, níg-dug-DU, GIŠ-dug-DU », NABU 2019/40. ARCHI, A., 2021, « The Royal Wedding at Ebla: Commemorative Rite and the Birth of the Crown Prince »,

Studia Eblaitica 7 : 1-32. BONECHI, M., 2016, « A Passive, and Therefore Prized Bride. New Proposals for the Queen’s Wedding in

the Ebla Royal Ritual », RA 110 : 53-78. CATHCART, K.J., 1972, « Notes on Some Hebrew Words for Vessels and their Cognates », RSO 47 : 55-58. CONTI, G., 1990, La fonte D della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita, Florence. DE MOOR, J.C., 1970, « Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra, II », UF 2 : 303-327. ÖZKAN ŞAVAŞ, Ş., 2008, « The Fist of the Storm God and the ‘Rundbau = Étarnu-structure’ », SMEA 50 :

657-680. PASQUALI, J., 2005, Il lessico dell’artigianato nei testi di Ebla, Florence. PASQUALI, J., 2006, « Eblaita dgú-ša-ra-tum = ugaritico kṯrt », NABU 2006/64 PASQUALI, J., 2008, « Il gú-a-du di dBAD-mí U₉-gú-a-áški ad Ebla », NABU 2008/7. PASQUALI, J., 2013, Symbolique de mort et de renaissance dans les cultes et les rites éblaïtes : dGa-na-na, les

ancêtres et la royauté, RA 107 : 43–70. PASQUALI, J., « Le rôle du soleil et de l’eau dans le culte des ancêtres d’après les données épigraphiques

éblaïtes à la lumière de la religion comparée et de l’ethnologie », dans I. ARKHIPOV, L. KOGAN et N. KOSLOVA (éds), The Third Millennium. Studies in Early Mesopotamia and Syria in Honor of Walter Sommerfeld and Manfred Krebernik, Leiden : 595-616.

PASQUALI, J., 2020, « La comptabilisation des tissus pendant le règne d’Ibrium (L.2769). Á propos d’un ouvrage récent », Or. 89 : 399-411.

PASQUALI, J. et MANGIAROTTI, P., 1999, « Eblaite rāzimtum, ‘Wailing Woman’ », NABU 1999/7. PETTINATO, G., 1992, Il rituale per la successione al trono ad Ebla, Rome. POMPONIO, F., 1985, « La terminologia aminnistrativa eblaita. I: šu-mu-takax », UF 17 : 237-252. WAETZOLDT, H., 2001, Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungstexte aus Ebla, MEE 12, Rome.

Jacopo PASQUALI <[email protected]> 5, Avenue du 7e Génie – 84000 Avignon (FRANCE)


– 10 –

4) Ad Suter 20181) – another instance of early ekphrasis — In her study of the Culminating Scene of the Stele of Dāduša of Ešnunna, Claudia Suter discusses the literary history of OB ekphrases. She provides a table covering more than 70 instances of ekphrasis, or ekphrasis-like passages, with the oldest cited example (although only attested in an OB copy) possibly hailing from the reign of Narām-Sūʾen (RIME 2.1.4.1001).2) As Suter notes, it remains unclear if that case is genuine, or rather an interpolation of the inscription’s OB copyist.3) Not discussed by Suter are two further OB copies of statue inscriptions of Erridu-Pizir, a “mighty” Gutian king of Akkade (RIME 2.2.1.1 and RIME 2.2.1.2).4) The relevant lines read (in Frayne’s translation):

E2.2.1.1

ii 13-27 Thus Erridu-pizir, the mighty, king of Gutium [and] of the [f]our [qua]rters: ‘At that time I fashioned a statue of myself and I(*) set a… on its neck…’ iii 20-24 (= colophon 2) Inscription…: its image… U-[…], general of M[adga]

E.2.2.1.2

viii 6ʹ-7ʹ (= colophon) Inscription on its shoulder: its image: (his) foot treading on the (neck of?)…

The formulations in the colophons suggest the copying of original post-Old Akkadian inscriptions. If genuine, and not interpolations by OB copyists, these two instances would be the second-oldest cases of ekphrasis (or: ekphrasis-like passages), only slightly later than the inscription of Narām-Sūʾen mentioned above. But unlike the latter, which only gives a broad description of the image as “his might and the battles in which he had been victorious” (RIME 2.1.4.1001, 4ʹ-11ʹ), the ekphrases in Erridu-Pizir’s inscriptions describe the king of Gutium and his attire, an enemy general, and finally the act of treading on the neck of someone, presumably that of the subdued enemy ruler KA-Nišba of Simurrum. Thus, E2.2.1.2 might be the oldest textualization of the ‘triumphator’-motif otherwise attested again only in the Tirigan-inscription of Utu-ḫegal (RIME 2.13.6.4, 121-123)5) and younger royal inscriptions.6)

Notes 1. Suter 2018. 2. Frayne 1993, 160. 3. Suter 2018, 7. 4. Frayne 1993, 220-225. 5. Frayne 1993, 287. 6. Cf. Suter 2018, 13.

References

C. SUTER. 2018. “The Victory Stele of Dadusha of Eshnunna: A New Look at its Unusual Culminating Scene.” In: Ash-Sharq 2/2, 1-29.

D. FRAYNE. 1993. Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia 2: Sargonic and Gutian Periods. Toronto/Buffalo/London.

Johannes BACH <[email protected]> JMU Würzburg (GERMANY)

5) Vocabula sumerica 1. UGU — Le Glossaire sumérien-français que P. Attinger vient de publier constitue déjà un instrument de travail indispensable et va faire progresser la recherche sumérologique dans les années à venir. En me basant sur cet ouvrage, mais sans en reprendre toutes les citations, j’espère livrer sous forme de notices succinctes mes propres réflexions sur la structure du champ sémantique de certains mots. Je commencerai avec ugu.

Attinger, Glossaire p. 1101 donne à ugu (qu’il lit uugu₆) le sens de « donner naissance ». Mais comme ugu n’est jamais verbal, il faut plutôt lui laisser son sens premier de « (qui est au) dessus (de la tête, du corps, ou d’autre chose) » et analyser ama-ugu, a-a-ugu comme « mère sommitale, père sommital », c’est à dire « qui est tout en haut, à l’origine » de la lignée dont nous descendons ou à qui nous remontons ― le même type de composition que dumu-saĝ ‘fils-tête’ = fils aîné ; ur-saĝ ‘chien-tête’ = « champion ». On peut en déduire que l’enchaînement a capite ad calcem qui structure les données dans des listes lexicales


– 11 –

― non seulement Ugu-mu, mais aussi Nabnitu ― et les séries médicales n’est pas un pur fruit des élucubrations des lettrés, mais que l’association ugu-commencement était déjà enracinée dans la langue.

Référence

P. ATTINGER, Glossaire sumérien-français, principalement des textes littéraires paléo-babyloniens. Harrassowitz 2021.

Antoine CAVIGNEAUX <[email protected]>

6) Vocabula sumerica 2. ZAL et le temps qui fond — On peut traduire le sumérien zal en français par ‘passer’, mais à vrai dire seulement dans la tournure X-loc ud+zal « passer son temps à… », c’est-à-dire quand le verbe a ud pour objet. L’étendre à d’autres contextes (y compris le simple ud+zal, où ud est sujet) est au sens strict une erreur (que j’ai commise aussi, mea culpa) provenant de notre propre conscience linguistique du « temps » que nous voyons ‘passer’ ou ‘s’écouler’ comme un fleuve.

Le sens ‘walk’ ou ‘pass by’ que M. Civil a voulu déduire de la première ligne d’Enlil et Namzitara (AfO 25 [1974/1977], p. 69) n’a été accueilli que timidement par les éditions qui ont suivi. En fait zal n’est jamais un verbe de mouvement.

1) Le sens premier est « se dissoudre, liquéfier, fondre » (Attinger, Glossaire p. 1151 sq.), akk. naḫarmuṭum. C’est sans doute pour cette raison que zal s’écrit avec le signe NI = graisse ; la métaphore « liquéfier comme du suif » est connue dans la littérature sumérienne et les magiciens passent leur temps à façonner et à faire fondre des statuettes de cette matière.

2) De là découle ― si j’ose dire ― le sens « se répandre, s’épancher » dit d’une chose qui répand sa propre substance.

zal se dit particulièrement de la lumière du jour, en particulier du lever du soleil (le moment où la lumière se déploie), mais aussi de son évolution jusqu’à la fin du jour, que les Sumériens voient comme une sorte de fusion, d’épanchement de la matière solaire, ce qui n’est pas si faux ; puis plus abstraitement du temps ; mais il peut se dire aussi de l’obscurité, du vent, même de la poussière qui se répand, car la poussière est déjà elle-même le produit d’une décomposition : dutu an-úr-ra i-in-nú saḫar kur-ra zal-àm « Le soleil se coucha à l’horizon, la poussière de la montagne était répandue » LSU 83.

Noter la tournure ír-ra zal : é zi-dè urim₂ki gul-la-gen₇ ír-ra mu-ni-in-zal « Elle se répand en larmes sur la bonne demeure comme s’il s’agissait de la ruine d’Ur » (Löhnert 2009, 264) ; on a la même métaphore dans le français « fondre en larmes ». Ce n’est pas exactement la même chose que ír-ra ud zal « passer le temps à pleurer » : ír-ra ud mi-ni-in-zal (incipit de l’ersema nº 82).

3) « Décomposer, démonter », par ex. dans é zal « défaire la maison, lever le camp » cité par Attinger ; mais aussi dans gú izi-ka gišal um-ma-ni-in-zal zà-ge₄ um-ma-lá Al-Apin 134, Mittermayer, UAVA 15, 116 « (Après avoir construit les maisons, il (le maçon) peut grâce à moi y jouir de la fraîcheur), mais quand il démonte la houe au bord du foyer et la laisse de côté pendue (au mur), (je ne le laisse pas partir chez toi sans satisfaction) ». La var. tuḫ suggère qu’il s’agit bien de défaire la houe, la lecture zal suggère peut-être qu’elle peut enfin prendre un peu de repos, se ‘détendre’ (v. Mittermayer, comm. p. 354).

4) On semble avoir un emploi absolu de zal avec le sens de ‘(se) relâcher, (se) détendre, (se) laisser aller’, un sens qui se dérive aisément de ‘fondre, se répandre’ :

al-ĝen al-zal kíĝ-e ba-lá « il va, il se laisse aller, il est inapte au travail » Dial 1, 97, Matuszak, ZA 109 (2019), 19 ; la trad de Matuszak « vertrödelte (die Zeit) » semble bien rendre le sens général ; ‘baguenauder’ (Attinger, en italique) tient compte de l’absence de complément.

Si on accepte cette analyse, le seul passage vraiment difficile à expliquer reste celui qui avait incité Civil à faire de zal un verbe de mouvement : nam-zi-tar-ra den-líl mu-zal-le, inim mu-na-an-du₁₁ (Namzitara 1‒2). Il pourrait s’agir du sens 4 (« Enlil se détendait » ? Il voulait peut-être s’amuser) ; mais on peut aussi comprendre « N., Enlil qui faisait commencer l’année lui adressa la parole », avec zal+e(erg) comme l’envisageait déjà Lämmerhirt (CM 50, 398), ou bien « N., Enlil, à l’aube de l’année, lui adressa la parole », avec un complément de temps analogue aux exemples de ud zal-le que cite Attinger). C’est au premier nisan que se détermine le destin pour l’année.


– 12 –

5) Composés. giri₁₇(KA)-zal (Attinger, p. 416). Il me semble peu probable que giri₁₇-zal « joie exubérante,

explosion de joie » contienne le mot « nez », puisqu’on a à époque ancienne un signe différent de KA, mais ce n’est pas tout à fait impossible. Si pour nous aujourd’hui un nez qui coule est un symptôme plutôt morbide et repoussant, c’est aussi un signe d’émotion ; voir M. Jaques, Le vocabulaire des sentiments, AOAT 332, 259‒263.

gú-zal guzallu (Attinger, p. 432) qualifie des êtres humains, mais est encore de sens incertain.


7) Vocabula sumerica 3. su/sù(-g), marû su-su/sù-sù — Attinger (Glossaire p. 936 sq.) rend sù(-g) par « être plein, rempli, inondé, recouvert (de laine) » ; « (se) rassasier ; combler » ; « dénuder » ; sù(-ga) par « vide » ; « creux (de paroles ». Cette contradiction appelle à cor et à cri une explication. Les problèmes sont nombreux et nécessiteraient un traitement monographique détaillé, mais j’essaie d’esquisser une vue d’ensemble.

Plusieurs classifications sont possibles, mais pour faire ressortir la logique d’emplois à première vue inconciliables, je poserais comme sens premier : « être lisse, lisser, aplanir, niveler » ; sans doute à l’origine identique à su-b, qui a pour seul sens « frotter, enduire » (les textes d’Ur III écrivent toujours su-ba pour qualifier un objet enduit de bitume, sauf dans ésir é-a ba-rí-ga ba-ab-su-ga « bitume servant à enduire un boisseau » BPOA 1, 1437) ; alors que les dérivations de su-g sont très nombreuses : tondre (un mouton) ; compenser, remplacer (une perte, un manque) ; rembourser (une dette, un arriéré), peut-être venger ; fournir en suffisance ; amener une chose à sa forme simple, à sa nature essentielle (sans mélange) » ; su-ga/sù-ga comme adjectif : « tondu (d’un animal) ; nu ; vide ; pur, absolu, rien d’autre (que la chose qualifiée) ».

1) « être lisse ; lisser, aplanir, niveler »

bar su-ga « dont la peau est épilée, lisse, nue » ≠ bar ĝál « (animal) pourvu de sa toison, non tondu » (Ur III passim, presque toujours écrit SU) ; à distinguer de bar-sù(d) « long extérieur » (terme musical).

Qualifiant siki, les graphies qui n’explicitent pas la consonne finale peuvent laisser dans l’incertitude sur l’interprétation : on attend le plus souvent siki sù-dr ‘long poil’ comme dans siki sù-ud-mu « mes longs cheveux » Ugu-mu 15 ; mais on a aussi siki sù-g : sipa e-zé-ni siki sù-sù-ga-àm « Les moutons du berger ont une toison très lisse » DI A 54 (un emploi qu’on pourrait ranger aussi sous 5 (fournissent suffisance de laine) ou 6 (sont tout laineux).

an-bar sù-ga « fer poli ».

gu sù-ga Ukg 4-5 v 6 // v 9 « fibre lisse (ou nue) (débarrassée des débris ligneux?) » (v. Bauer, BiOr 46 [1989] 640). a/é-ri-a sù-ga-àm « désert plat et nu » : é-ri-a sù-gen₇ lú nu-un-ku₄-ku₄ « Comme si c’était une steppe désolée, nul n’y pénètre plus » (Lam sur Nippur 33, cf. sens 2 et 3).

a-ab-ba sù-ga-àm « étendue d’eau dont la surface est lisse » ; on peut peut-être classer ici : a-gàr sù-sù-ge ku₆ nu-um-de₆ « les champs entièrement lissés (par l’inondation ?) ne donnaient plus

de poisson » Malédiction d’Akkade 173 ; j’avais compris (dans Volk 2015, 330) « Die verödeten Fluren… » (sens 2) ; mais ― comme le note P. Attinger dans sa traduction de 2019 sur son site électronique ad loc ― la ligne précédente a-gàr gal-gal-e suggère une épithète plutôt positive ; Attinger lui-même traduit « Les champs inondés… », anticipant la confusion entre su-∅ et su-g (voir sub 7). On peut aussi comprendre « Toute l’étendue des champs… ».

Noter les logogrammes KAŠ.A.SÙ : ka-áš-bi-ir : ḫīqu etc. (bière diluée) Diri V 238‒241 ; SAḪAR.A.SÙ : i-im : ṭīdu ‘argile’ (poussière rendue lisse par l’eau) Diri VI B 90.

2) « nu » au sens concret : Pour cet emploi et le suivant Wilcke, Lugalbandaepos, p. 168‒170 donne de nombreux exemples,

comme men-kù saĝ-za/zu um-te-ĝál saĝ su/sù-zu ĝen-na « ôte le pur turban de ta tête et va tête nue » SK 2 ii 10 et //, etc.


– 13 –

šu su/sù-g « (mettre à nu, vider » : ki-su₇ šu su/sù-ga « nettoyage de l’aire » désigne aussi un mois à Girsu présarg. (Bauer 1967, p. 224).

3) « vide ». L’emploi 2 avec su₇ ‘aire’ montre très concrètement comment on passe du sens de ‘nu’ à ‘vide’ : šà sù-ga « ventre vide, à jeun » ; mais šà sù-ga, selon le contexte, peut signifier aussi « sans habits, nu » (2). En français aussi ‘nu’, ‘plat’ et ‘vide’ peuvent être synonymes.

Dans ce sens aussi adverbialement : gú izi-ka gišal um-ma-ni-in-zal zà-ge₄ um-ma-lá, e-ne sù-ga-ni/bi nu-mu-e-ši-du-un Al-Apin 134‒135 , Mittermayer, UAVA 15, 116 « quand il démonte la houe au bord du foyer et la laisse de côté pendue au mur, je ne le laisse pas partir chez toi sans rien, (on lui donne à boire et à manger et on lui paie son salaire) » (pour la traduction de zal voir Vocabula sumerica 2).

4) « Régler (une dette, un arriéré) ; rembourser, remplacer ; satisfaire (un créancier) » (faire table rase ; peut-être à l’origine en lissant la table des comptes) :

lá-ì su-ga « arriéré réglé » ; su-su-dam « à rembourser, à remplacer » (passim Ur III). À Ur III s’écrit presque toujours SU, mais à époque ancienne aussi SÙ : bar še-bi nu-da-sù-sù-da-ka « Comme il ne pouvait rembourser cette orge » Ent 28/29 A ii 27=B iii 11 ;

(Baranamtara dam Lugalanda énsi-lagas-ka-ke₄) ì-sù-sù-ge-éš! « B, épouse de L, gouverneur de Lagash les (les créanciers) a satisfaits » Nik I 17 (= Edzard, SR 45) v 1.

šà-bi su-ga est un terme de gestion administrative, par ex. šà-bi su-ga níĝ-kasx(ŠID) še-ka / ì-ĝál « (Panier à tablettes) contenant (…) et ce qui a été réglé des comptes d’orge » AAS 199 et passim Ur III.

Il faut peut-être ajouter le sens de ‘venger’ (< réparer un dommage), v. infra 8d. 5) « Mener une chose ou un processus à complétion, de manière qu’il n’y ait rien à ajouter, ni à

retrancher ; fournir/recevoir la quantité égale au besoin ; avoir assez de qch » :

nin-e (/kù inana-ke₄) úr-kù-ga ki-nú mi-ni-in-sù-ga-ta « Quand la reine (Inana) eut pleinement joui du repos dans le pur giron (du roi) » Iddin-Dagan A 189//190.

šà-bi-a ú mi-ni-in-sù-sù-ge-eš-àm kúrun mi-ni-in-du₁₀-ge-eš-àm « Là (dans l’Ekur) ils (les dieux) ont pris un bon repas (peut-être aussi concrètement ‘vidé (les plats)’ ?) et dégusté les boissons alcoolisées » Lam sur Nippur 205 ; šà-bi-a ú sù-sù šà ḫúl-la šà-ba mi-ni-in-ĝar-ra-àm « Sur ce Il assura (dans la ville) satisfaction des besoins en victuailles et bonheur » ibd. 275.

On a du₁₀-g/sù-g en parallèle à l’hendiadys šà/bar dans šà du₁₀-ga bar sù-ga libba uṭīb kabatta ušrīš « il apporte joie et satisfaction » (akk) Gabbay, HES 2, p. 132, b+2.

ki!-e-ne-di-di nu-mu-un-sù-ga-ĝu₁₀ « mon jeu que je n’ai pas terminé ! » Gilgameš et Enkidu aux Enfers 171. é-ì-gára-sù(-g) « la maison qui fournit à satiété (?) graisse et crème » (un temple) pourrait aussi être rangé sous 6 (la maison toute graisse et crème).

6) sù-ga adj., par dérivation du sens ‘lisse, sans accroc, parfait’, souligne la qualité absolue de la chose qualifiée, qui n’est rien d’autre qu’elle-même, surtout avec des noms abstraits, mais parfois aussi des mots concrets (< a-ab-ba sù-ga-àm « rien que la surface de la mer » 1) :

níĝ-me-ĝar sù-ga « silence absolu ; silence de mort ». nam-tag sù-ga « faute absolue, capitale, impardonnable » ou « châtiment irrévocable ». šà-lá sù-g « qui ne connaît que la miséricorde » (≠ šà sudr « très intelligent »). ma-al-ga sù-g « réflexion parfaite, pur esprit » : dba-ú ma-al-ga-sù-ge Ukg 57, 1. ĝéštug-ĝu₁₀ níĝ-galam-ma sù-ga-àm « mon intelligence est une chose absolument parfaite » (Shulgi B 54 et p). Mais on peut avoir aussi malga sudr « profonde intelligence », v. Attinger, Glossaire, note 2906). la-la sù(-g) « pur bonheur, bonheur parfait ». ḫi-li sù(-g) « charme absolu ». D’où peut-être l’équation lexicale sù(-g) = riāšu « exulter ». é-me-lim₄-sù « Maison toute de splendeur rayonnante » (NP SR 45 iii 3). Ici on est tenté de traduire « Maison qui inonde de splendeur ». Ce sont peut-être des emplois de ce type ou des emplois comme la Maléd. d’Akkade 173 (v. 1) qui sont à l’origine de la confusion signalée en 7.

Je rangerais ici encore : íd ki-ĝar-ra-bi-ta ku₆ mušen sù-ga-àm « Le canal, du fond de son lit (à la surface ?) est tout poissons et volatiles » ou : « Depuis que le canal a été établi, on ne voit plus que poissons et oiseaux » Tinney, JCS 51, 48 : 461, ligne composite mais comparer úriki-ma a de₆-a-bi ku₆-àm diri-bi mušen-àm « Les eaux apportées à Ur sont tout pleines de poissons (ne sont que poissons), sans oublier les


– 14 –

oiseaux » ibid. 41 : 25 et //. La traduction par ‘plein’ est parfois inévitable en français, faute de mieux, mais elle ne reflète pas les associations sémantiques du sumérien.

7) Outre sù-dr ‘être loin’, il y a deux verbes avec lesquels su/sù-g ne doit pas être confondu : ▸a) su-∅/su-su « Couler, noyer, engloutir (typiquement dans l’eau) » est un autre verbe (Attinger,

p. 927). Les textes d’Ur III donnent toujours má su(-a), jamais *má su-ga (v. BDTNS), de même má su-a-ba « Alors que les bateaux coulent… (les bottes de roseaux liées ensemble maintiennent la cargaison à flot) » Gilgameš et Huwawa A 111‒113.

kuš₇ bí-in-su-a-gen₇ kuš₇ na-an-ga-bí-ib-su-su-un « Si je ne dois pas engloutir (Arata) sous les sables (et le rendre semblable à un lieu…) englouti sous les sables… » (Enm et le seigneur d’Arata 195), où on a une sorte d’équivalent de la construction infinitive paronomasique de l’akkadien (GAG §150a).

šà-bi su-su-a-àm « Son sens (du message) était profondément caché » (Enm et le seigneur d’Arata 500).

Dans les sentences suivantes on a les deux verbes dans la même phrase :

tukum-bi gišmá diri-ga gišmá ru-ru-gú ba-su gišmá nu-ub-su-su « Si un bateau qui descend le courant coule un bateau qui le remonte, il (le pilote) n’a pas à remplacer le bateau (coulé) » ; tukum-bi gišmá ru-ru-gú gišmá diri-ga ba-su gišmá bí-ib-su-su « Dans le cas contraire, il doit remplacer le bateau » Roth, SLHF v 27‒36 (Roth 1995, p. 51).

Cependant (à cause de la surface lisse de l’eau sous laquelle tout disparaît) la tradition tardive a fini par confondre les deux verbes :

lú ĝišmá(-bi) a sù-ga ḫé-me-en // ša ina eleppi ina mê iṭbû « Serais-tu quelqu’un qui a coulé avec (son) bateau » Udug-hul IV 144ʹ version récente ; la version ancienne a plus correctement lú ĝišmá-ni ì-sù-a « dont le bateau a coulé » (v. Geller 2016, p. 160). zi kalam-ma ba-an-sù-ge-eš napišti māti uṭabbû « ils noient la vie du pays » SpTU 2, 1 i 5.

▸b) sù-?/sù-e qu’on a dans a sù « asperger d’eau, éclabousser » est encore un autre verbe (Attinger, p. 934 sq.), avec une finale vocalique ou gutturale : a sù-a-ni kaš-a-ni zé-ba-àm « L’eau qu’elle répand (sur le sol ?) et sa bière sont bonnes » Šu-Sin A 22 (Sefati p. 345) ; u₅-šu-ur-me a ki dè-sù-e « Que notre voisine arrose le sol » DI H rev. 9 et 11 ; amaš kù-ge ì ki ḫa-ra-sù-e, u₅ ì-sù-e ga ì-sù-e « Que le pur enclos asperge le sol de graisse, qu’il l’asperge de graisse et de lait » Chant de la baratte 25‒26 (Klein, Fs Römer, AOAT 253, 206 sq.).

Ce verbe traduit un mouvement mais semble aussi intimement associé à l’eau. Le sens originel semble être se mouvoir par reptation, comme un poisson, une anguille ou un serpent (que représente le signe graphique) ; frétiller ; serpenter (d’un cours d’eau) ; tordre ou secouer pour faire gicler un liquide ; essorer ; asperger.

a-šà-ta a im-šèĝ-ĝá sù-a « champ drainé de l’eau de pluie (évacuée avec des seaux et à coups de balai, ou en la dérivant à l’aide de rigoles ?) » TMHNF 1-2, 294 (C. Wilcke, BBVO 18, p. 315).

On a le même verbe dans le rite ér-sù-a « larmes qui ont jailli » c’est-à-dire « (cérémonie) qui fait pleurer (d’émotion ou de joie) » (plutôt que ‘rite accompagné d’aspersions’) passim Ur III (v. Sallaberger, Der kultische Kalender, p. 191).

Dit d’un quadrupède : kuĝ₂(KUN) sù-∅ « s’ébrouer, battre de la queue » (Attinger, Glossaire p. 941 pose sudr (pas sù) pour kuĝ₂ sù en invoquant Lugale 171, mais l’exemple n’est pas probant).

8) Difficile : ▸a) dlú-é-su-ga ZA 91, 224 i 19 : « celui de la maison vide ? », une divinité qui reçoit un culte à

Umma. ▸b) íldag šitan-na-ba nu-sù-ga-mu ildakku ša ina rāṭišu lā i-ri-šu IV R 27, 1, 6 « Peuplier qui n’a

pu (enfoncer ses racines assez profondément pour) atteindre la rigole ? » (sens 7a pour *su-a ou 5 ?) // íldag šitan-na nu-bùluĝ-ĝá(-a)-mu « qui n’a pas grandi dans la rigole » (VS 2, 26 iʹ 10 et //, Alster [1986] 29) ; akk. « qui ne s’est pas réjoui (riāšum) », cf. sù : riāšu (lexical).

▸c) sù-g/su-g formant refrain dans CT 15, 19, 4‒12 // CT 58, 11, 12.14 :

4. dumu é-gal-a-ni nu-mu-un-sù-ga-mu « mon fils qui n’a pu achever/jouir pleinement de son palais » (sens 5 ?) 6. lú edin-na-ke₄ nu-mu-un-su-ga-mu « mon (fils) à qui l’homme de la steppe n’a pas permis cet achèvement/cette

jouissance » (sens 5, causatif ?)


– 15 –

8. lú ka-ba-ra-ke₄ (// ka ambar-ra-ke₄ CT 58, 11, 18) nu-mu-un-sù-ga-mu « … ? » 10. lú ka-aš-ka-sa-ke₄ nu-mu-un-sù-ga-mu « … ? » 12. lú ḫul-ĝál nu-mu-un-su-ga-mu « mon (fils) auquel le méchant (pour ḫul-ĝál-e !) n’a pas permis cet

achèvement ». Noter l’alternance graphique SÙ/SU. À cause du parallélisme, et sachant que lú edin-na-k, lú ka-ba-ra-k (ka<-aš>-bar-ak ?), lú ka-aš-ka-sa-k et lú ḫul-ĝál sont des êtres malfaisants, le sens 5 paraît le plus vraisemblable dans chacune de ces phrases.

▸d) galam-ma na-an-ug₅-ge-en dumu in-sù-ge tu-da « Ne tue pas (un homme ?) ingénieux (?) ; il a un fils qui prendrait sa place/le vengerait (?) » Instr Šur 262 (sens 4 ?).

Références

ALSTER, B. 1986 : « Edin-na ú-saĝ-ĝá. Reconstruction, history and interpretation of a Sumerian cultic lament » in K. HECKER und W. SOMMERFELD (éds), Keilschriftliche Literaturen. CRRAI XXXII. BBVO 6, p. 19‒31. Berlin.

BAUER, J. 1967 : Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagasch. Diss. Würzburg (= StPohl 9, 1972). GELLER, M. J. 2016 : Healing magic and evil demons. Canonical Udug-hul incantations. BAM 8. ROTH M. T. 1995 : Law collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Atlanta. VOLK, K. (Hrsg) 2015 : Erzählungen aus dem Land Sumer. Wiesbaden.


8) Vocabula sumerica 4. TE = écarter, éloigner ? — Dans la plupart des contextes le verbe te peut se rendre par ‘approcher’ (akk. ṭeḫû). Il fait partie de la classe très restreinte des verbes qui ont un marû avec augment consonantique (teĝ). Sur les cinq entrées de PIzi II 114‒118, quatre ont des gloses aisément explicables : lētu, simtu, ṭeḫūtu, ṭeḫû). Pourtant la tradition lexicale plus tardive donne, entre autres équivalents de TE, le sens de ‘s’éloigner’. Les séries Izi E 93 sqq. et Aa VIII/1, 185‒205, très proches l’une de l’autre, contiennent toutes deux nesû et duppuru (v. CAD s. vv.). Il pourrait s’agir ― il est vrai ― d’un contraire (te ≠ nesû), pourtant on est frappé par les équivalences paléo-babyloniennes de CUSAS 12, 252, 182‒187 :

182. šu te-en-še « reçois de lui » : muḫuršu « va le trouver » 183. šu te-mu-un-še « reçois de moi » : muḫranni « viens me trouver »

Dans ce premier groupe on peut admettre qu’on a des traductions idiomatiques. Le suivant (184‒187) est plus surprenant :

184. te-ba : isi « éloigne-toi » 185. te-ba : duppir « va-t-en » 186. íl-lá : duppir « enlève » 187. te-mu-da : isânni « éloigne-toi de moi »

Il s’agit sans doute de sumérien d’école, cependant ces expressions semblent refléter des situations de la vie courante, donc un langage réel. En tout cas l’équivalence te = nesû était déjà présente à l’esprit des scribes paléo-bab., on le voit aussi dans la glose de BM 98396 (CT 58, 5 = Kramer 1982), 17 (//23), commentée, mais mal interprétée par Sövegjártó (2020, p. 182) áĝ-ka-aš te-te-a // ki-lu-um ni-zi ni-zi, c’est-à-dire killum nesi nesi « le cri est lointain, lointain » (avec áĝ-ka-aš = makkaš ikkillum/killum).

Comment expliquer cette contradiction ? C’est que le sens de te n’est pas simplement ‘approcher’, mais plus précisément ‘entrer/mettre en

contact avec une chose ou avec quelqu’un par un mouvement linéaire qui affecte la chose (dir) ou la personne (dat)’ : an-né ba-te… ĝuruš-ra mu-na-te (Thomsen, JNES 51 [1992], 22‒23 l. 1.8 et passim) « (l’œil) touche le ciel… touche le garçon… », pour le malheur des victimes de ce toucher.

L’emploi le plus fréquent est šu+te ‘recevoir (qch)’. Fondamentalement la forme šu ba-te est intransitive (qch entre en contact avec les mains). Comprise ainsi l’expression pourrait traduire une sorte de jeu joué par deux partenaires invisibles, et refléter théoriquement aussi bien le point de vue du donneur que du receveur, l’un poussant (éloignant) vers l’autre l’objet d’un don, d’un échange ou d’un marchandage.

Dans la réalité de nos textes le junctus est construit ergativement (šu ba-n-te/ba-nši-n-te), et c’est le point de vue du receveur qui est privilégié. On semble alors avoir affaire à une sorte d’étrange construction


– 16 –

causative : ‘qn (erg), s’adressant à qn (term), fait (?) qu’un objet (abs) vienne toucher les mains (dir)’. En réalité l’ergatif ne marque pas l’action, mais l’acceptation d’une chose et en même temps d’un acte et des obligations qu’il implique.

Le terme a un emploi juridique très général (impliquant une obligation, ou tout au moins une relation avec le donneur), il reflète assez bien la situation d’une personne qui, sans rien dans les mains, doit les remplir, mais aussi en particulier la situation du groupe des vendeurs dans les contrats de Fara, puisqu’ils abandonnent un bien immeuble (qu’on ne peut manier) pour toucher (comme on dit en français) des prestations meubles. Cette situation explique peut-être pourquoi c’est exclusivement le point de vue de l’acceptant qui a été privilégié dans l’usage du composé šu+te, mais la syntaxe de l’akk maḫāru ‘aller au devant de (qn), recevoir (qch)’ a dû jouer un rôle. En effet l’exemple CUSAS 12, 252, 182‒183 cité plus haut montre clairement que šu+te peut être utilisé exactement comme maḫāru.

te se dit aussi métaphoriquement d’affects sensoriels ou émotionnels (ní, ḫi-li, ul), le plus souvent d’attaques importunes, des flèches, des coups de lance ou d’aiguillon ; de la maladie, de la peur ; des agaceries, des taquineries. Cela se reflète dans les listes lexicales par les équivalences comme saḫālu ‘piquer’ (Izi E 101 ; par erreur salāḫu dans Aa VIII/1, 195) ; ruššû ‘maltraiter, ennuyer’ (A VIII/1, 198) ; kuddu ‘maltraiter, harceler’ (v. Krebernik, ZA 94 [2004] 236).

On comprend ainsi comment le même verbe peut exprimer ‘approcher’, mais aussi le mouvement inverse ‘éloigner, écarter’, en fonction des infixes dimensionnels, comme ba ‘diviser’ → + dat. donner une part (qiāšu) ; + abl. prélever (našāru) ; + com. partager (zâzu). Cependant les attestations de cet emploi restent rares, peut-être à cause de la proximité de te avec l’akkadien ṭeḫû, qui ne peut avoir ce sens.

Références

KRAMER, Samuel Noah 1982 : « BM 98396 : a Sumerian prototype of the Mater dolorosa », Eretz-Israel 16 (Fs. Orlinsky) 141*‒146*.

SÖVEGJÁRTÓ, Szilvia 2020 : Sumerische Glossenhandschriften als Quellen des altbabylonischen hermeneutischen Denkens. Dubsar 18. Zaphon. Münster.


9) Beth Shean 3?: A Sumerian Royal Inscription revealed in Nehemia Zori’s Archaeological Inheritance — The short note below reports the recovery and study of an intriguing object which was found in the temporary section at the Israel Antiquity Authority’s (IAA) storeroom at Bet Shemesh, among objects from the archaeological activities of Nehemia Zori in the Beth Shean Valley and Jordan Valley in the modern state of Israel.1) The object is a clay cone, whose front tip is now missing (fig. 1). It is inscribed with a royal inscription in cuneiform, in the Sumerian language, from the founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur, King Ur-Nammu, who according to the standard chronology reigned from the years 2096 to 2048 BCE, and so is but is one of over 100,000 cuneiform documents attested for the period (see e.g. the Database of Neo-Sumerian Texts [BDTNS]). Thus, to be blunt, the appearance of yet another Ur III piece is not always worthy of detailed discussion. However, what is unique about the object presented here is that it was held in modern times among finds from the Beth Shean Valley, and so the object has a most intriguing possible archaeological and historical context, namely, northern Canaan, as early as the Intermediate Bronze Age. If correct, this would make this Ur-Nammu cone the first cuneiform find from the third millennium ever found in Israel, predating the Middle Bronze Age tablets from Hazor by at least two centuries, and the third cuneiform find from the Beth Shean area. Unfortunately, the provenance of the find in the vicinity of Beth Shean remains far from proven, an unfortunate situation which we will address below prior to our short edition of the inscription.

The Provenance of the Nehemia Zori, Ur-Nammu The available chain of evidence, and availability of cuneiform finds from Middle and Late Bronze

Age Canaan may support the proposition that the cone reached the the Lower Galilee from Sumer in southern Mesopotamia. These include 10 cuneiform finds from Middle Bronze Age Hazor (Horowitz W., Oshima T., and Sanders S., Cuneiform in Canaan, The Next Generation, 2018: 63-88), which is only 85


– 17 –

kilometers or so due north of Tel Beth Shean along the Jordan Valley, and an Old Babylonian period (Middle Bronze Age) inscribed cylinder seal from Beth Shean itself that was published in Cuneiform in Canaan as Beth Shean 1.3)

However, we cannot offer proof for the object’s archaeological context, at a specific excavation or site excavated by Zori other than the fact that it was once held together with artifacts from Zori’s excavations and surveys as part of the collection of the archaeological museum in Bet Shean, which was opened when the State of Israel was established in 1948. This museum contained the materials from the Zori inheritance, all of which was later transferred to the IAA when the museum was closed in 1986. Thus, the appearance of the Ur-Nammu cone in the IAA temporary stores, is consistent with a theory that the cone is a genuine archaeological find from the Bronze Age. The authors made a number of inquiries among colleagues familiar with the history of the Beth Shean excavations in an attempt to confirm this theory, but were unable to resolve the issue satisfactorily. As such, there is no evidence that precludes a theory that the object was excavated in Iraq and brought to Israel in modern times.

Most significant remains the hard fact that there is no evidence for a clear and definite archaeological context or chain-of-evidence connecting our Ur-Nammu cone with Zori’s activities, and it is hard to believe that Zori would have left such an important find unmentioned if he had found it during one of his excavations or surveys. Further, the history of modern Assyriology in our region suggests that the object reached the museum in Beth Shean by other means, for example, as a gift which came to be included, for one reason or another, with materials from Nehemia Zori’s excavations. It is even possible that the object has nothing to do with Zori whatsoever, but was donated directly to the museum in Bet Shean, and so came to be included with Zori’s materials when the museum closed. Such accidents of circumstance and coincidence are well known in relation to cuneiform texts. For example, a still unpublished fragment of a Sargon II inscription was found in a box of discarded items at the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University, and an inscribed brick of Amar-Sin, the grandson of Ur-Nammu, was found at a monastery in Abu Gosh near Jerusalem (Oshima NABU 1999/55).

The Text

1. dNanna (For) Nanna 2. amar-bàn-da-an-na The rampant young calf of the Heaven-god An 3. dumu-sag First born son of 4. dEn-líl-lá of Enlil 5. lugal-a-ni his (Ur-Nammu’s) king 6. Ur-dNammu Ur-Nammu 7. nita-kalag-ga The mighty male 8. lugal uriki-ma-ke₄ The King of Ur- 9. é-temen-ní-gùru-ni The temple, ‘Foundation Platform which Bears Splendor,’ 10. mu-na-dù He (Ur-Nammu) built for him (Nanna)

Ur-Nammu, the mighty male, the King of Ur, built the temple ‘Foundation Platform which bears Splendor,’ for (the Moon-god) Nanna, the rampant young calf of the Heaven-god An, the first born son of Enlil, his king.

Commentary The current inscription offers nothing new in the way of philology or historiography. The standard

work on Ur III period royal inscriptions already offers more than 50 inscriptions of Ur-Nammu, that are known from a total of more than 500 exemplars (Frayne, The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 3/2, Ur III Period, 9-89). In fact, the largest number of attested exemplars for any Ur-Nammu inscription is 163, for ours, which Frayne lists as Ur-Nammu 11. These 163 exemplars are held in museums and tablet collections around the world including the British Museum, University Museum in Philadelphia, the Iraq Museum in Baghdad, and a few other smaller collections. Our item is thus at least the 164th recorded example of the inscription Ur-Nammu 11. Thus, as noted our object would only be noteworthy if we could demonstrate that the object was recovered in archaeological remains from the Land of Canaan, rather than Ancient Sumer.


– 18 –

Petrographic Analysis A petrographic analysis was conducted in order to determine the provenance of the cone. The tip of

the cone was broken away and a pink patina developed on the surface. A small sample was taken from the broken edge for a petrographic analysis. A naked-eye examination of the fresh break exhibits green dense clay with tiny voids. The color of the clay is significantly contrast to that of the pink patina.

The examination under the petrographic polarizing microscope shows a greenish inactive clay with about 10% non-plastic inclusions of silt to sand-sized grains up to 200µm. Most of the inclusions are angular quartz grains and other components are feldspar grains, rounded and elongated brown stains (iron oxides), bone fragments, microcrystalline quartz fragments and rounded isotropic particles. The inactive clay and its green color are attributed to high firing temperature.

Comparative data of the raw materials and techniques used for ceramic vessels and other clay objects along the Beth Shen Valley during the Bronze Age as well as later periods has been gathered through several petrographic studies.4) Ceramic and other clay objects from the Beth Shean Valley are usually characterized by low-fired calcareous matrix with tufa (travertine) fragments as a predominant inclusion, or variegated sand-sized calcareous and volcanic rocks derived from the Jordan River or other local streams such as the Harod stream.

The petrographic-based provenance of the foundation clay cone is not conclusive. A remote provenance is suggested based on the inclusions and the high firing temperature which are different from that of the local vessels of the Bet Shean Valley. Based on the inscription, one might assume that this ‘remote provenance’ must be southern Mesopotamia. However, even if the object was manufactured and inscribed in Ancient Iraq, this does not preclude the possibility that it was brought to Canaan in ancient times, eventually came to rest in the Beth Shean Valley, where it was then excavated thousands of years later by Nehemiah Zori and his archaeological team, or by others in modern Israel.

Final Verdict Is the Sumerian Royal Inscription revealed in Nehemia Zori’s Archaeological Inheritance a modern

donation to the Nehemia Zori’s Archaeological Inheritance, or an archaeological find from the Beth Shean area, and so Beth Shean 3 in the Cuneiform in Canaan corpus? Probably not, but just maybe!

Fig. 1 Fig. 2


– 19 –

Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Notes 1. The object was found during the end of August 2014, by IAA workers under the supervision of Mrs. Rebecca

Cohen-Amin while arranging materials from the late Nehemia Zori in the temporary storeroom in Bet Shemesh. Nehemia Zori (Tsori) was the inspector of the Department of Antiquities from the late 1930s through the late 1970s. He was in charge of the Bet Shean, Central Jordan and Harod Valleys, as well as the eastern Lower Galilee. In this capacity, he conducted a pioneering survey in the Bet Shean Valley and adjacent areas as well as many salvage excavations. During the years 1950 –1967 he was in charge of the local archaeological museum at Bet Shean.

2. The artifact bears registration number ‘ ןב 3870’. The meaning of the ligature ןב is the abbreviation for תיב תוכנ antiquities museum, i.e. Beth Shean Archaeological Museum, where Zori was director from 1950-1967.

Substantial efforts were performed trying to locate the collection catalog of this museum in order to determine the archaeological origin of the artifact. However, the catalog could not be located in either the IAA archive, or in the Bet Shturman archive at Kibutz Ein Harod (Meuhad), and conversations with several relevant people also did not yield a copy of the catalog. However, a few pages of the catalog were located on April 14, 2015 in the IAA storeroom at the Ha-Movil junction. The first page starts with the item number 3971, which is a fragment of a dedication limestone pillar(?) from the synagogue in Beth Shean. There is no date when the registration of this and the subsequent item took place. However, the date of the registration of the third record in this page is December 31, 1967, meaning that the item discussed here had been registered no later than this date.

3. Beth Shean 2 is a Amarna Period letter on a small clay cylinder from Tagi to Labaya. For cylinder seals from Middle Bronze Beth Shean see Mazar, A., ‘Middle Bronze Syro-Anatolian Cylinder Seals and Impressions from Tel


– 20 –

Beth Shean,’ in Shai, I., Chadwich, J.R., Hitchcock, L., et al., Tell it in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel, Essays in Honor of Aren M. Maeir on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, 2018: 153-166.

4. Mazar, A. Ziv-Asudri, A. and Cohen-Weinberger, A., ‘The Early Bronze II-III at Tel Beth Shean: Preliminary Observations,’ in Adams, R.B. and Goren, Y.(eds.), Ceramic and Changes in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. (Levantine Archaeology 2), 2000: 255-278; Cohen-Weinberger, A, ‘The petrography of the Late Bronze Age Pottery from Tel Beth Shean,’ in Mazar, A. and Mullins, R. (eds.), Excavations at Tel Beth Shean 1989 -1996, Volume II: Middle and Late Bronze Age strata in area R., 2007: 548-553; ‘Petrographic Studies,’ in Panitz-Cohen, N. and Mazar, A. (eds.),Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996. Volume III The 13th–11th centuries BCE. Strata in Areas N and S, 2009: 519-529; Cohen-Weinberger A. and Goren, Y. ‘The Clay Sources of the Theater Pottery Workshop: A Petrographic Study,’ in Bar-Natan, R. (ed.) Bet She’an II. Baysan. The Theatre Pottery Workshop. The Bet Shean Archaeological Project 1989-1999 (IAA Report 48), 2011: 215-228.

Wayne HOROWITZ <[email protected]> The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 972-2-5881181

(ISRAEL)

Zvi GREENHUT <[email protected]> Anat COHEN-WEINBERGER <[email protected]> 972-2-5892282 Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), Jerusalem, (ISRAEL) 972-25892228

10) Lubanda, governor of Irisaĝrig — Ur-mes, énsi of Irisaĝrig, is among the governors of Ur III whose tenure was the longest: he is mentioned with the title of énsi from AS 3 II, in a tablet of Drehem (G. and W. Farber, in M. Dietrich - O. Loretz edd., Von altem Orient zum alten Testament. Festschrift für Wolfram von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, AOAT 240, Neukirchen - Vluyn 1991, p. 81, Nr. 7), until IS 4,1) in two tablets from his town (see D. I. Owen, Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Sagrig/Āl-Šarrāki and the History of the Ur III Period, Volume 1, Nisaba 15, Bethesda 2013, p. 57). That he was governor of Irisaĝrig already in Š 46 IV (see ibid., p. 51) is not sure: in this Drehem tablet (N. Schneider, OrSP 18 [1925], pl. 3, Nr. 8) Ur-mes is the deliverer of a mu-kux of 119 sheep, but without any title.2) Besides, in three other Drehem texts, dated at AS 1 IX and X (W. H. Ph. Römer, OMRO 68 [1088], p. 23, Nr. 17; M. Molina, AuOr 10 [1992], p. 10, Nr. 1)3) and AS 2 VI (OIP 121, 478), Nanna-zišaĝal occurs as governor of Irisaĝrig, and the reason of this short insertion of another énsi within the governorship of Ur-mes would not be clear.4) On the contrary, the tenures of énsi of Irisaĝrig ad interim by Ilallum, Dadani, and then, again, Ilallum in the stormy years AS 7-8 (see D. I. Owen, op. cit., p. 53) are understandable: in the last years of the reign of Amar-Suena many provinces were compelled to replace their governors, beginning with the most important ones, Lagaš-Ĝirsu and Umma.5)

Before Nanna-zišaĝal Irisaĝrig had another governor, whose name is supplied nor by the tablets of his provincial capital neither, with his complete title, by the archives of Drehem, which supply the greatest number of the governors’ names of the provinces of Ur III reign,6) but by an Umma seal and an Umma tablet. The former one is the only seal, at the best of our knowledge, with a dedication to the governor of a province different from that in which the sealed document was drawn up. The legend of the seal is the following: I 1) lú-bàndada 2) énsi 3) iri-saĝ-rig₇ki II 1) ur-sa₆-ga 2) dub-sar 3) dumu da-d[a] 4) árad-zu (NYPL, 281). The tablet and the relative envelope are dated at the year Š 38 (and XII month of Umma calendar) and record the receipt of amounts of four cereal products, supplied by Urzu,7) by the seal’s owner, Ursaga dumu of Dada. The Umma tablet (A. Deimel, OrSP 6 [1923], p. 60, Wengler 50), dated at Š 36, is a list of assignments of sheep and goats, in which a she-goat is delivered to Lubanda, governor of Irisaĝrig (obv, 19-20).

However, another Umma tablet mentions Lubanda, this time only with the title of énsi. BPOA 6, 913 is a record of 288,5 working days of hired laboreurs (ĝuruš hun-ĝá). The barley of their engagement (á), defined as “barley of Lubanda, the governor” (obv. 2), is delivered to Umma from Kam-sal₄-la, seat of a granary (guru₇), as well as of an administrative centre (é-gal), a village (é-duru₅), a field (a-šà), a threshing floor (ki-su₇) and also of an establishment of fattening of sheep (é-udu-niga).8) The tablet, which is dated at the year Š 39 (and IV month of Umma calendar), was drawn up by the Umma administration, but the reason for which an amount of barley, which is delivered to Umma from the granary of the near Kamsala, is defined as belonging to or supplied by the governor of Irisaĝrig escapes us.9) As a matter of fact, on the basis only of this last Umma tablet, which describe Lubanda as énsi, we would have regarded him as a substitute of Ur-Lisi10) ad interim in the governorship of Umma.


– 21 –

Lastly, Lubanda is mentioned as énsi in a Drehem tablet of most recent edition (C. Liu, The Ur III Administrative Texts from Puzrish-Dagan Kept in The Harvard Museum of the Ancient Near East, HSS 68, Leiden-Boston 2021, Nr. 454). Here it is recorded that the dog breeder Lugal-urani received a she-ass (eme) and six young donkeys (dùr) by Lubanda, the governor. The tablet is dated at Š 35. So, the tenure of Lubanda as governor of Irisaĝrig goes at least from Š 35 to Š 39.

There is another queer feature in the above-mentioned envelope of NYPL, 281. Ursaga, dumu of Dada, the owner of the seal dedicated to Lubanda, énsi of Irisaĝrig, does not occur in any other tablet neither of Umma, nor of Irisaĝrig. On the contrary, he is mentioned in many texts of Ĝirsu: MVN 2, 196 obv. 3 (Š 30), where he gets an amount of flour; M. Sigrist - T. Ozaki, Administrative Texts in the British Museum, PPAC 5, Changchun 2913, 602 rev. I 10-11 (Š 33), where he gets an amount of barley; SNAT, 260 obv. II 19 (Š 34), where he is responsible of 270 working days of ĝuruš; M. Sigrist, Tablettes du Princeton Theological Seminary, Époque d’Ur III, Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 10, Philadelphia 1990, 570 obv. 2 (Š 35), where he supplies an amount of barley to the singer Aradmu; G. A Barton, Haverford Library Collection of Cueneiform Tablets or Documents from the Temple Archives of Telloh, Part III, Philadelphia 1914, tav. 144, 383 obv. 10ʹ (lost date), where he receives an amount of ninda. Therefore, he seems to have been an official of the Ĝirsu administration. Now, given the concurrence both of the patronymic and of the years of their activity, it would be a remarkable coincidence if the official of Ĝirsu and the Lubanda’s “servant”, who was active also in Umma, were different men. But, such a mobility of an official of middle rank, who was not a “messenger” or another official of this category, is rather unusual.

Notes 1. IS 4 is the last year in which the tablets of Irisaĝrig (about two dozens) are dated to the reign of Ibbi-Sȋn. Among these

texts two are of the last month (D. I. Owen, op. cit., 983; CUSAS 40, 1209). 2. Among the many officials by the name of Ur-mes mentioned in the Drehem texts dated to the last years of Šulgi there

is also a šabra (see R. K. Englund, ASJ 14 [1992], p. 102, 4 rev. 1: Š 46 IX) who too could be the author of the above-mentioned mu-kux of sheep.

3. In these two tablets (the former one is not wholly legible) the title of “governor of Irisaĝrig” is preceded not by the name Nanna-zišaĝal, but by another important office held by him, “the zabar-dab₅” (see the following note).

4. Successively Nanna-zišaĝal ascended to the higher tenure of governor of Ĝirsu, even if only for about one and a half years. Indeed, he results to have been governor of Ĝirsu from AS 3 VI (however, in two Drehem tablets, dated at AS 3 XI, his direct predecessor Ur-Lamma is yet mentioned as governor of Ĝirsu: C. A. Peters, ARRIM 4 [1986], p. 4, 14; D. C. Snell, ASJ 9 [1987], p. 255, 38) until AS 4 X on the basis of two other Drehem tablets (PDT 1, 537; D. I. Owen, Mesopotamia 8-9 [1973-74], p. 152, 8), in which Nanna-zišaĝal, énsi of Ĝirsu, receives 149 and 450 sheep respectively from Abbasaga. His successor, Šarakam, has already the title of governor of Ĝirsu in the annual balance of cattle of AS 4 PDT 1, 557 rev. I 7 (immediately after a mention of Nanna-zišaĝal, also as governor of Ĝirsu: rev I 4). Therefore, Šarakam’s tenure began in one of the last two months of AS 4 and it lasted at least till AS 7 VI (CUSAS 6, 1548). While Nanna-zišaĝal was governor first of Irisaĝrig and then of Ĝirsu, he held also the highest cultic office of zabar-dab₅, and, in addition to it, he was a kind of chief of the vintners or brewers (kurunx-a-gal), the “supreme cup-bearer” (sagi-mah), and the “surveyor of the diviners” (ugula máš-šu-gíd-gíd-dè-ne), as it is stated by his seal, with a dedication to Šulgi, impressed on the Ĝirsu envelopes CBT 1, 12920+A and 3, 28053+A; MVN 12, 376 (all of AS 3 XI) and CBT 2, 23313+A (AS 4 IV). Another Ĝirsu envelope, MVN 12, 376, also dated at AS 3 XI, is impressed by the seal of Utu-bara dedicated to the zabar-dab₅ Nanna-zišaĝal. The only tablet in which Nanna-zišaĝal has the title of zabar-dab₅ is MVN 6, 242 (rev. 8), whose year name (mu ús-sa si-mu-ru-umki ba-hul) may refer to four years: Š 26, Š 33, Š 45, and IS 4 (see R. Firth, CDLJ 2013/1, §3.2.6). Now, contra D. I. Owen, op. cit., p. 58, it must be considered that in the year IS 4 other officials had already succeeded Nanna-zišaĝal in the tenure of zabar-dab₅ (see H. Waetzoldt, ZA 96 [2006], p. 182) and, besides, he is not mentioned in other texts of Ibbi-Sȋn and not even in any text of Šū-Sȋn. On the other part, there is too great a gap between Š 26 (see H. Waetzoldt, art. cit., pp. 179-80 e 182) or Š 33 (see H. Brugen, Essen in Sumer, München 2008, p. 203) and the other mentions of Nanna-zišaĝal (AS 2-4). Therefore, Nanna-zišaĝal was probably the zabar-dab₅ (at least) in Š 45, while the succeeding zabar-dab₅ (Enlil-zišaĝal) is mentioned since AS 7 IV (BIN 3, 134 obv. 3). Altogether, the statement of L. Allred, in S. J. Garfinkle - M. Molina edd., From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D. Proceedings of the International Conference on Sumerian Studies Held in Madrid 22-24 July 2010. Winona Lake 2013, p. 116, that Nanna-zišaĝal was “a scarcely known individual” seems unfair for the memory of our personage.

5. The other provinces which result to have changed the governor are Babilonia, Ešnunna, Kazallu, Kiš, and Šuruppak (see L. Allred, art. cit,, pp. 117-18), but it is likely that also other ones shared the same changement. To the return of Ur-mes to the power in AS 9 I (see D. I. Owen, op. cit., p. 53) his relationships with the family of the new king must have contributed: Urmes’s daughter-in-law, Waqartum, was a sister (nin₉) of Šū-Sȋn (see J. Klein - O. Benner, BiOr 70 [2013], p. 612). However, the Authors translate é-gi₄-a (of Ur-mes, the governor) in UET 3, 1383 obv. 2, as “wife”, and not “daughter-in-law”.


– 22 –

6. Unfortunately for our knowledge of the sequences of governors in the provinces, in the Drehem tablets a governor is, as rule, mentioned with the title and the toponym, but without the personal name, or with his name and the title of énsi, but without the indication of the province.

7. In other tablets Urzu supplies flour for Ur (MVN 20, 1: Š 47) and for Nippur (AAICAB 1/2, Ashm, 1937-79: Š 32). 8. For its location, Kamsala must be situated on the Tigris and downwards the Ka’ida of Umma, “the inlet of (the canal

of) Umma”: here this canal branched off from the Tigris and reached the quay (kar) of Umma and then the city of Umma (see P. Steinkeller, ZA 91 [2001], pp. 38, 49-51). That Kamsala was downstream from the Ka’ida is demonstrated by some tablets which indicate the trip from the former place to the latter one with the verb gíd, “to tow (the boat upstream)” (cf. Th. Fish, MCS 4 [1954], p. 9, BM 111779 obv. 2; F. Yıldız - T. Ozaki, Die Umma-Texte aus den Archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul. Band V (Nr. 3001-3500), Bethesda 2000, 3069 obv. 8 - rev. 2, within 2 days). The trip from Umma to Kamsala is indicated first with the verb gíd, for the stretch of the canal of Umma upwards (from Umma to the Ka’ida), and then with the verb diri-ga, “to float (the boat downwards)”, for the stretch of the Tigris to Kamsala (D. A. Foxvog, A Summary of Non-Sealed Labour Assignaments from Umma, ASJ 8 [1986], p. 68, rev. I 13). However, in the text Nisaba 31-2, 129 the trip both from the quay of Umma to Kamsala (obv. 2-3), and from Kamsala to the quay of Umma (obv. 5 - rev. 1) is indicated only from the verb gíd, likely since in both the cases a part of the trip, and that more tiring, was upwards. So, it may be stated that “a boat was towed and floated from Umma to Nippur/Esaĝdana”, meaning that the boat was first towed upstream to Kasahar and then floated downstream to Nippur/Esaĝdana, but for the same trip a text may more briefly say than “a boat was towed from Umma to Nippur/Esaĝdana” (see P. Steinkeller, art. cit., p. 59).

9. Amounts of barley, for the reign of Šulgi, are withdrawn from Kamsala to Umma also in T. Ozaki - M. Sigrist, Tablets in Jerusalem: Saint-Annie et Sant-Étienne, Periodic Publications on Ancient Civilizations 4, Changchun 2010, 144 (Š 43), with a seal impression dedicated to the governor Ur-Lisi, in BPOA 6, 1882 (Š 46), with a seal impression of Ur-Lisi, and in J. Curtis, ASJ 16 (1994), p. 107, 10 (Š 46), on behalf of an unnamed governor (ki-énsi-ta), who must be Ur-Lisi.

10. The tenure of governor of Umma was held by Ur-Lisi at least from Š 32 IX (M. Sigrist, Documents from the Tablet Collection in Rochester, New York - Bethesda 1991, 206 with a seal impression dedicated to Ur-Lisi, “the governor of Umma”) until AS 8 VIII (PDT 2, 1240 obv. 3), when his bala is yet mentioned. However, at the end of AS 8 Ajakala, his brother, has already succeeded him (see, e.g., BPOA 6, 151 rev. 14ʹ; N. Schneider, Or 47-49, 382 rev. III 25, two accounts of éren-dib-ba, dated at the last month of AS 8) and the purchase contract of a house, dated at AS 8 XII, with the formula “When Ajakala was governor of Umma” (A. Kamil, AOF 44 [2017], p. 211).

Francesco POMPONIO <[email protected]>

11) A note on early sceptres* — In his thorough and thoughtful article on early Mesopotamian (prior to Ur III period) sceptres, A. Bramanti concluded: “in Early Mesopotamia the logogram PA constitutes the main, if not the only, way to express the concept of sceptre; the reading ĝidru proved to be the most plausible, and is confirmed by the ED glossed PN nin-ĝidruru-zi” (Bramanti 2017, 137).

In the light of a piece of evidence dating to the Old Akkadian period this conclusion may need a slight modification, as an alternative writing ĝišḫu-ud also existed for similar objects. This can be proven based on line 9 on the obverse of an Old Akkadian document ITT 2 4646 from Ĝirsu in which the writing ĝišḫu-ud ḫa-lu-úb appears in the listing of various wooden vessels, containers and pieces of furniture. Thus, it represented an object made of the ḫaluppu-tree. Although made of a different material than the precious sceptres of the Ur III period that were written as ḫa-ad,1) the writing ĝišḫu-ud in all probability represents an object of similar shape and thus the same “basic concept” of a sceptre. In this context, note that in the Old Babylonian lexical list Proto Ea the sign PA is equated with readings ḫu-ud and ḫa-ad (MSL 14, 51) which—as shown here—both stood for sceptres.2)

Judging by similar words for sticks or sceptres in other Semitic languages, such as u₃-dum in Eblaite, ūd in Arabic,’ud in Hebrew (Bramanti 2017, 125), the readings ḫu-ud (ḫud) and ḫa-ad (ḫad) are Sumerian loans from the Akkadian ḫaṭṭu(m) that was the main term for sceptres in that language.3) The “correct” version in Akkadian could thus possibly be *ḫuṭṭu(m).

In sum, Bramanti’s conclusion that PA was the main logogram for the concept of the sceptre was basically correct – he just did not present the variants ḫu-ud (from ḫud(PA)) and ḫa-ad (from ḫad(PA)).4) The Sargonic writing ĝišḫu-ud in ITT 2 4646 and the Neo-Sumerian writing ḫa-ad suggest probable exceptions from the writings in which PA = ĝidru (Bramanti 2017, 126), such as the DN dnin-PA-da that should be interpreted either as dnin-ḫud-da or dnin-ḫad-da, and ĝišPAda, in which the sign PA should similarly be interpreted either as ḫud or ḫad. In addition, one may doubt whether all the entries in Bramanti’s listing of divine names, temple names and personal names (Bramanti 2017, 140–152) have the reading ĝidru, and


– 23 –

whether not at least some of them should be read ḫud (or ḫad) instead. For example, ḫud-du₁₀ for PA-du₁₀ (“good sceptre”), lugal-ḫud-du₁₀ for lugal-PA-du₁₀ (“king is a good sceptre”), and so on.

Notes * This study was supported by the Estonian Research Council grant (PRG938). 1. See the Ur III administrative documents MFM 2 24 05; TIM 6 36 (=Sumer 24, 80 16); UET 3 0406; UET 3

0428; UET 3 0567; UET 3 0660; UET 3 1498 for sceptres made of gold, silver, bronze and tin. For ḫa-ad denoting sceptres in the first text listed, see also Widell 2005, 25; Paoletti 2012, 428.

2. That ḫa-ad was only a variant of ḫu-ud was assumed by Cavigneaux (1976, 9). For ḫu-ud, ḫa-ad and other variant writings also standing for brightness and ritual purity, see Cavigneaux 1976, 16–17.

3. Note that ḫaṭṭu(m) as the Akkadian equivalent for Eblaitic u₃-tum was (hesitantly) proposed by Brugnatelli 1988, 175, note 16. For an overview of other interpretations on the Eblaitic u₃-dum/tum or ʿūd-um, see Hajouz 2013, 124–125.

4. To be fair, it needs to be noted that the writings ḫa-ad are dated to the Neo-Sumerian period and Bramanti’s study covered only earlier periods.

Bibliography

BRAMANTI, A. 2017. “The Scepter (ĝidru) in Early Mesopotamian Written Sources.” Kaskal 14, 121–152. BRUGNATELLI, V. 1988. “Sprachwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu einem literarischen Text aus Ebla.” In

H. HAUPTMANN and H. WAETZOLDT (eds), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla. HSAO 2. Heidelberg, 173–178.

CAVIGNEAUX, A. 1976. Die sumerisch-akkadischen Zeichenlisten: Überlieferungsprobleme. PhD Thesis. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.

HAJOUZ, M. A. 2013. Der Wortschatz der Ebla-Texte. Morphologische und lexikalische Analyse. PhD Thesis. Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.

PAOLETTI, P. 2012. Der König und sein Kreis: Das staatliche Schatzarchiv der III. Dynastie von Ur. BPOA 10. Madrid.

WIDELL, M. 2005. “The administrative texts from the Ur III Period in the Medelhavsmsueet.” Medelhavsmsueet: Focus on the Mediterranean 2, 11–44.

Andreas JOHANDI <[email protected]> School of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Tartu (ESTONIA)

12) Some notes on the god Ensigalabzu* — As there seems to be no comprehensive and up-to-date treatment on the god Ensigalabzu (for example, in the form of an entry in major encyclopaedias) and so far the scholarly discussions on him have been in most cases limited to a few sentences (see, e.g., Falkenstein 1959, 113; Durand 1976–1977, 172–173; Richter 2004, 106–107), a brief study of this relatively obscure deity should be in order.

As far as known to me, Ensigalabzu (densi₂-gal-abzu) first appears in a single source from the Ur III period. According to document CST 286, an administrative text originating from Puzriš-Dagān and dating to AS 03-12-28, the deity is mentioned right after Ninĝišzida, and the duo is offered one fattened sheep directly after the offerings brought to Inanna in Ku’ara. The added note sizkur₂ ša₃ kaskal, “offerings/rites on the way” (Sallaberger 1993 I, 225) shows that the religious procession had already left Ku’ara while bringing the offerings. The closeness to Ku’ara hints at the connection of Ensigalabzu to its main deities Ninsun and Asalluḫi (Johandi 2019, 80). It is the latter with whom Ensigalabzu has many things in common, especially the fact that both belong to Enki’s circle of deities. The proximity of Ensigalabzu and Ku’ara also suggests that in the Ur III period Ensigalabzu was in all probability already identified with the gods Ensimaḫ and Martu (for the ties between the latter two, see Johandi 2021, 268–270). These relations were fully established in the later An=Anum god-list (see below).

I know of four Old Babylonian sources in which Ensigalabzu appears. In three of these, he is mentioned in relation to Asalluḫi. Thus, in god-list TCL 15 10, column ii, lines 39–47, Ensigalabzu appears after three names for Asalluḫi, four names for the latter’s wife, and Ensimah. Ensigalabzu is the last name in the second column of the list; the third column begins with dabgal and two boatmen deities: dsig₇-niĝir and dsirsir. Marduk with his entourage follows shortly in lines 7–14 of column iii. In an Old Babylonian


– 24 –

Akkadian incantation that deals with a scorpion sting (CUSAS 32 30d), Enki, Asalluḫi and Ensigalabzu are invoked to help the stung person.

In a difficult text, CT 42 6, which most probably is also an incantation (directed against evil wind?), since it features the so-called priestly legitimation formula,1) Asalluḫi and Ensigalabzu appear in the second and third line. For both deities, their “sonship” to someone or something is stressed but unfortunately the second halves of the lines are fragmentary. Asalluḫi is most probably named with his common epithet “son of Eridu”. For Ensigalabzu, it would be tempting to read “son of Enki”, but judging by the copy, something like “son of the lord of Abzu” dumu en abzu-ke₄ seems a better option, although admittedly, in the copy the end of the penultimate sign in the line has two vertical wedges and the sign AB (in ZU.AB = Abzu) as a rule has only one.

In the hymn Samsu-iluna B (Falkenstein 1949; Durand 1976-1977), the writing ensi₂-gal-abzu appears in line 31 as part of a list of deities (Marduk, An, Enlil, Inanna, Enki, Ensigalabzu, Namma, Damgalnuna) who all lend support to King Samsu-iluna. The very beginning of line 31 has not survived, and Falkenstein has restored it as dasar. In that case, ensi₂-gal-abzu written next would only be an epithet of Asar (= Asalluḫi). The first half of this line is, however, closely paralleled in the first millennium canonical udug-ḫul incantations in which Ensigalabzu appears in a list of deities who are invoked to help against the attacks of demons/ghosts: zi densi₂-gal-abzu nu-ban₃-da kur-ra a-ab-ba-ke₄ ḫe₂-pa₃, “By (the life of) Ensigalabzu, the overseer of highland and sea, be adjured!” (Geller 2016, 152, line 107ʹ). Both these epithets also appear after Ensigalabzu in Samsu-iluna B (with minor differences: the sign nu not present due to a lacuna, and the sea written as ab-ba instead of a-ab-ba). Based on comparison with the incantation, it seems more probable that, at the beginning of this line in the hymn, there should be a dingir sign, and the god Ensigalabzu appears in this text in his own right and not as an epithet of Asar/Asalluḫi (this was also the interpretation in Durand 1976–1977, 163). The mention of highland or a mountain (kur) is a clear reference to Ensigalabzu’s identification with Martu/Amurru (see below) to whom the epithet “man/one of the mountains”, lú/mu-lu ḫur-saĝ-ĝá (Edzard 1987–1990, 435; Klein 1997, 102, 104) is often attributed in other sources. In Samsu-iluna B, two other epithets follow. Firstly, na-de₅ abzu-a, “purifier of the Abzu”, or perhaps “advisor” or “instructor” “of the Abzu” would suit better the surrounding epithets, although both meanings working together cannot be excluded (see Sallaberger 2005, 252–253), and secondly, nir-gál eriduki-ga, “authoritative one of Eridu”.

The subject of the next line in Samsu-iluna B is uncertain because of the lacuna at the beginning. Neither of the modern editors inserts a name of a deity here, although the surviving part of the line informs that someone proclaims the king’s name and is requested to be his “great princely power” (a₂-nun-gal). Both Durand (1976–1977, 163: “Le dieu qui…”) and Falkenstein (1949, 218: “der Gott, der…”) seemed to think that this concerns the deity who appeared in the previous line (Ensigalabzu/Asar respectively). The logic of the text, however, seems to suggest that this line should also begin with the mention of another deity, as four preceding and two succeeding lines begin with the naming of a god or a goddess. Based on H. de Genouillac’s earlier copy (TCL 16 43), one could consider the goddess Ninisina to appear at the beginning of line 32, written as dnin-ì-si-na.2) Ninisina would also be a suitable candidate because, in some incantations, she appears together with the Eridu deities.3) This interpretation is, however, problematic as the damaged sign for ì(NI) would in that case be very small. One could also suggest the writing dnin-is-si-na (the signs GIŠ and SI written as a ligature), but this writing with “is” would be without parallels. In addition, note that, according to Durand’s later copy, the first survived sign is clearly ŠU, and the second one is one of the URU˟ signs (Durand interprets it as URU˟BAR). I am, however, not aware of a deity whose name was written with the signs ŠU, URU˟BAR (or similar), and NA.

In addition to these four occasions on which the god appears as “himself”, i.e., as a separate divine entity, ensi₂-gal-abzu—without the divine determinative—appears in line 169 of the myth Enki and the World Order as an epithet of Enki. This is not unprecedented, as, for example, the god of the river ordeal Ilurugu can appear either as an independent deity or as an epithet or byname to both Enki and Asalluḫi (Johandi 2019, 136–137). In the case of the latter two gods, this phenomenon might be dubbed “hereditary characteristics” (ibid., 135–136).


– 25 –

As was mentioned above, in the Old Babylonian god-list TCL 15 10, Ensigalabzu was named right after the god Ensimaḫ. In the later An=Anum god-list (column ii, lines 292–293), Ensigalabzu and Ensimaḫ are equated to AN.AN.mar-tu and dmar-tu respectively.4) The juxtaposition of Ensigalabzu and Ensimaḫ with the two Martu-deities, as I have discussed elsewhere (Johandi 2021), seems to be important in the development of the divine figure of the god Marduk.

Ensigalabzu also appears in the first millennium Muššu’u incantation series, written as densi₂-ĝal₂-abzu. In Muššu’u, tablet vii, lines 10–18, the sequence of divine names from An=Anum, column ii, lines 288–299 are taken over verbatim and comments are added for each deity. Line 13 of Muššu’u vii has: “Ensigalabzu (who loves?) righteousness and justice” (densi₂-gal-abzu niĝ₂-zi niĝ₂-si-sá [ki aĝ-ĝá]); the god AN.AN.mar-tu with whom Ensigalabzu is equated here, has the Akkadian version ra-’i-im kit-t[ú] (Böck 2009, 136; Jiménez 2014, 115).5) This is, however, a late scholarly speculation that, in all probability, has little to do with the religious “reality” of the Ur III and Old Babylonian periods.

Based on the evidence collected here, one can conclude that, in the Ur III period, Ensigalabzu (and Ensimaḫ) was a by-name of the god dMAR.TU who belonged to Enki’s/Eridu’s circle.6) In the Old Babylonian period, the name dMAR.TU, i.e., Amurru, denoted first and foremost the Semitic deity of savage features connected to the Amorites, and the other dMAR.TU— perhaps Sumerian ĝar₇-du₂ (Attinger 2011, 61)—had in most cases probably transformed into dAMAR.UTU, i.e., Marduk (Johandi 2021, 275–276).

However, the traditions of two Martus sometimes seem to be mixed in the Old Babylonian period (ibid., 271–272). Mixed traditions are most probably also the case for Ensigalabzu in Samsu-iluna B in which he, on the one hand, belongs to the Eridu pantheon but on the other—as the “barbarian” dMAR.TU—is related to the mountains. According to the god-list TCL 15 10, it seems that Ensigalabzu is a prominent (separate?) member of the Enki/Eridu circle together with Ensimaḫ, less important than Asalluḫi but more important than Marduk. For incantations TCL 42 6 and CUSAS 32 30d, one could consider the possibility that Ensigalabzu is only a by-name for Marduk (previously dMAR.TU) who in this way “infiltrated” the sphere of incantations and eventually devoured the previous incantation expert Asalluḫi together with his (Marduk’s) own “nickname” Ensigalabzu.7) Thus, the sequence of deities in Samsu-iluna B could be a later development introduced by the Ḫammurabi dynasty, according to which Marduk is the most important deity in the pantheon, Asalluḫi does not appear at all, and Ensigalabzu is the figure of lesser importance (not yet completely devoured by Marduk).

One could further speculate that, as the name “great ensi of the Abzu” seems a rather “generic” one in the sense that it looks more like an epithet than a name in its strict sense, it might have been an artificial creation based on “ensi₂-gal en-lil₂-la₂”, the well-known epithet of the god Ninurta.8) As ensi₂-gal en-lil₂-la₂ was documented earlier, it seems possible that it was first borrowed from Ninurta by the Sumerian dMAR.TU. For a further link between Ensigalabzu and Ninurta, note also that nir-gál, “authoritative” (Samsu-iluna B) is often an epithet of Ninurta.9) Thus, Ensigalabzu (= Marduk?) could have been a deity moulded on the example of Ninurta in more than one way.10) The way in which this epithet/name was traded between the sons of Enlil and Enki could be another factor helpful in illuminating the dynamics of relationship between the two important gods.

Notes * This study was supported by the Estonian Research Council grant (PRG938). 1. The deities Enki, Utu, Asalluḫi and Namma are invoked in the formula (so Asalluḫi appears twice in this text).

For the formula of priestly legitimation, see Johandi 2019, 177–184. 2. For this writing, see Steinkeller 1978, 169. 3. See, e.g., YOS 11 69, PBS 1/2 127, CUSAS 32 7f, iii 1ʹ–18ʹ/CUSAS 32 8b, i 6ʹ–23ʹ. 4. Note that in one fragmentary manuscript (CT 24 29) the equations are reversed and AN.AN.[mar-tu] is equalled

to (a little modified) densi₂-gal-maḫ. 5. Note that the Sumerian ki aĝ-ĝá is an addition by Jiménez based on the Akkadian version. 6. For two separate dMAR.TUs in the Ur III period, see Johandi 2021, 270–272. 7. For the name Asalluḫi in Sumerian “halves” of the bilingual texts as the counterpart to dAMAR.UTU in

Akkadian, see documents CT 4 8a and RA 70 135 & 137; see also Sommerfeld 1982, 17. 8. See, e.g., the year-name of Šulgi 21 a+b in document BE 01/2, 125; hymn Ninurta C (see Falkenstein 1959,

107, line 42); RIME 3/2.01.06.1005, lines 1–3. For ensi₂-gal en-lil₂-la₂, see also Falkenstein 1959, 113. The same epithet was at times attributed to human rulers: Enmetena is “great ensi of Ningirsu”, ensi₂-gal/dnin-ĝír-su-ka (RIME


– 26 –

1.09.05.01, column v, lines 28–29; RIME 1.09.05.30, lines 8–9) and Sargon is “great ensi of Enlil”, ensi₂-gal/den-líl (RIME 2.01.01.01, lines 10–11).

9. See, e.g., Ninurta’s Return to Nippur, lines 4, 149 and 207. 10. For Ninurta’s influence on Marduk and Enūma Eliš, see Lambert 1986.

Bibliography

ATTINGER, P. 2011. “La lecture de MAR.TU.” NABU 2011/58, 61–62. BÖCK, B. 2009. “Texts and Fragments: Three New Sources of Muššu’u.” JCS 61, 133–138. DURAND, J.-M. 1976–1977. “Sumérien.” Annuaire 1976–1977, 155–176. EDZARD, D.-O. 1987–1990. “Martu (Mardu). A.” RlA 7, 433–438. FALKENSTEIN, A. 1949. “Ein sumerisches Kultlied auf Samsu’iluna.” ArOr 17, 212–226. FALKENSTEIN, A. 1959. Sumerische Götterlieder. I. Teil. Heidelberg. GELLER, M. 2016. Healing Magic and Evil Demons: Canonical Udug-hul Incantations. BAM 8.

Boston/Berlin. JIMÉNEZ, E. 2014. “New Fragments of Gilgameš and Other Literary Texts from Kuyunjik.” Iraq 76, 99–121. JOHANDI, A. 2019. The God Asar/Asalluḫi in the Early Mesopotamian Pantheon. PhD Thesis. Tartu. JOHANDI, A. 2021. “The Identity of Martu (dMAR.TU) in the Ur III Period.” Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica

27, 267–278. KLEIN, J. 1997. “The God Martu in Sumerian Literature.” In: I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller (eds.). Sumerian

Gods and Their Representations. CM 7. Groningen, 99–116. LAMBERT, W. G. 1986. “Ninurta Mythology in the Babylonian Epic of Creation.” In: K. Hecker and

W. Sommerfeld (eds.). Keilschriftliche Literaturen. Ausgewählte Vorträge der XXXII. Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Münster, 8.-12. 7. 1985. Berlin, 55–60.

RICHTER, T. 2004. Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit. AOAT 257. Münster.

SALLABERGER, W. 1993. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit. UAVA 7. 2 Volumes. Berlin/New York. SALLABERGER, W. 2005. “The Sumerian Verb na de₅(-g) “to clear”.” In: Y. SEFATI et al (eds.). “An

Experienced Scribe who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda, Maryland, 229–253.

SOMMERFELD, W. 1982. Der Aufstieg Marduks: Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. AOAT 213. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn.

STEINKELLER, P. 1978. “A Note on the Reading of the Name of Isin.” JCS 30, 168–169.

Andreas JOHANDI <[email protected]>

13) Beobachtungen zum Aufbau der Zame Hymnen — Die Bearbeitung der Zame Hymnen, Krebernik/Lisman 2020 (hier KL) hat die Grundstruktur überzeugend geklärt: Enlil weist den Göttern ihre Orte zu und diese preisen ihn. Die letzte Hymne spielt eine Sonderrolle, weil es sich bei Lisi vermutlich um die eigene Stadtgöttin handelt. Die Bearbeitung erleichtert es nun, der Struktur dieser frühen Hymnen weiter nachzugehen.1)

Die ersten Gottheiten sind Enlil, Ninirigal, Innana, Enki (en dnu-te-mud), dasar-lú-KALAG, Nanna, Utu. Die Uruk/Kulaba zugeordnete Ninirigal schreitet der großen Göttin Innana voran. dasar-lú-KALAG ist Enki zuzuordnen. Lassen wir Ninirigal und dasar-lú-KALAG aus, so bleibt die Reihenfolge: Enlil, Innana, Enki, Nanna, Utu. Die große Götterliste aus Tell Fāra, SF 1 beginnt mit: An, Enlil, Innana, Enki, Nanna, Utu. SF 7: Enlil, Innana, nun (Enki), Sud. Sud ist entweder wegen ihrer Beziehung zu Enlil oder als Stadtgöttin von Šuruppak weit nach vorne gerückt. Der Anfang der Götterliste aus Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ lautet: [an], [den-líl], [dnin-l]íl, [de]n-k[i], [dna]n[na], ⸢dinnana⸣, d[IN]NANA. Hier geht ihr Vater Innana voran. Vielleicht als Morgen- und Abendstern unterschieden. Der „Kudurru“ CUSAS 17, 104 enthält en-líl(É), den-ki, dinnana in unklarem Zusammenhang (FD I/II).

Sieht man von der Liste der Fisch essenden Gottheiten SF 5, 6 und von An ab, der ohne bedeutenden eigenen Kultort eine Sonderrolle spielt, gilt: Die großen Götter sind Enlil, Innana und Enki. Enlil steht am Anfang gefolgt von Innana oder Enki. Es können die Gestirngottheiten Nanna und Utu oder bezogen auf Innana ihr Vater und ihr Bruder folgen und der Vater kann Innana vorangehen.

Die Hauptgötter stehen für Nippur, Kulaba (Uruk) und Eridu. Wie in den übrigen Hymnen werden zunächst die Kultorte genannt und dann ihre Götter. Die Kultorte verbinden Himmel und Erde: iri an-da mú an-da gú lá nibruki dur an ki „Stadt, die mit dem Himmel verwachsen ist, die den Himmel umarmt,


– 27 –

Nippur, Band von Himmel und Erde!“ Dies klingt in der Hymne zu Kulaba/Innana in Z. 25f. wieder an: ĝepar an ĝepar an ki „himmlisches Ĝepar, Ĝepar von Himmel und Erde“. KL 34: ĝiparx(KISAL) diĝir kikisal diĝir „divine ĝipar, divine courtyard“. Das Motiv der Vereinigung von Himmel und Erde im Kult findet sich auch beim dritten großen Gott in Z. 31: eridu men an ki „Eridu, Krone von Himmel und Erde“ (cf. Diskussion bei KL 95).

In der Zeile davor lesen KL: abzu ki kur gal „Abzu, place of a great mountain”. Es wäre aber eher zu erwarten, dass abzu direkt mit einem großen Berg verglichen wird: Cf. úrim kur šem „Ur, Berg duftender Kräuter“, Z. 35 und unugki kur gal „Uruk, großer Berg“ ELA 4;“ abzu kur „Abzu, Berg“ Išme-Dagan D B 7. „Abzu, großer Berg der Erde“ mag sich darauf beziehen, dass Enkis Abzu ein unterirdischer Ort ist, über dem sich der ebenfalls Abzu genannte Tempel in die Höhe erhebt. Eine Anspielung auf Enlils Epitheton „großer Berg“ in Z. 5 ist möglich. Es ergibt sich ein Schema „X an X an ki“ in der Hymne der „Herrin des Himmels“ und „Y ki, Y‘ an ki“ beim „Herren der Erde“ (Keetman 2021) und zugleich eine begriffliche Nähe, denn die „Krone“ men, ist auch die Kopfbedeckung des En-Priesters, der im Ĝepar wohnt. Der En-Priester, der in Uruk/Kulaba mit dem Herrscher zusammenfallen kann, vollzieht im Ritus der „Heiligen Hochzeit“ die mystische Verbindung der irdischen und himmlischen Welt. In der Hymne auf die vergöttlichte „Krone“, die zwischen zwei Göttern mit Bezug zu Uruk steht, kommen die gleichen Begriffe zusammen: ĝepar en an-da mú dmen zà-me „das Ĝepar des En, ist mit dem Himmel verwachsen, (dort sprach) die göttliche Krone den Preis!“ Z. 80f.

Der Begriff „Himmel und Erde“ ist in die Hymnen der drei großen Götter fest verwoben. Er kommt aber in den Zame Hymnen auch als lose gebrauchtes, schmückendes Bild vor, aber erst mit deutlichem Abstand vom Anfang: Z. 147: lamma an ki. Wahrscheinlich dlamma ki „Lamma der Erde/Unterwelt“ wegen 149: dlamma-sa₆-ga. In 83 ist dlamma-nin-súmun vorzuziehen, da in SF 1 i 15 lamma Bestandteil des Namens sein sollte. Außerdem kommt die Gottheit in IAS 3272) fünfmal vor, immer mit lamma, was für ein Beiwort wie en, nin, kù zu viel ist, zumal lamma in dieser Funktion sonst nicht belegt ist. Auch steht lamma immer direkt nach dem Determinativ. 164: MAR BALA an ki „…Spindel(?) von Himmel und Erde“. Obwohl der Gott in 165 dnin-MAR geschrieben wird, kann man vermuten, dass das erste Wort für das zweite Element im Namen steht, das sonst meist MARki geschrieben wird, wobei ki wohl ein phonetisches Hilfszeichen ist. Es bleiben 175: èš-bulug₄ bulug₄ an ki „‘Aalen-Heiligtum’, Aale von Himmel und Erde”, ebenso 183: isín bulug₄ an ki und 186: é an ki „Haus von Himmel und Erde“.

Von den hohen Herren Enlil und Enki eingerahmt nimmt Innana eine besonders starke Position ein. Ihre Hymne ist mit 9 Zeilen (nicht 11, denn 20-21 und 22-23 gehören zusammen) für die Zame Hymnen ungewöhnlich lang. Ihr Kulaba erscheint ganz am Anfang in zwei Hymnen und dann wieder und zwar wenn man die besondere Stellung der Lisi berücksichtigt in der letzten Hymne. Kulaba rahmt also die zu Enlil gesprochenen Hymnen ein. In dieser Hymne wird Innana indirekt als dnin-UM genannt. Davor steht die Dumuzi-Gestalt dama-ušum-gal. Versuchsweise sei hier eine abweichende Übersetzung der beiden Hymnen vorgeschlagen: ⸢murù⸣ é a si immalx(TÙR) nú é-šà-ta suḫ₁₀ menx ḫé-GAM.GAM dama-ušum-gal zà-me kul-aba₄ sila daĝal menx šu bad utu dištaran dnin-UM sa-bar₆ pana šitá za-gìn dnin-niĝarx zà-me „Muru, Haus ans Wasser gesetzt, (wo) die Wildkühe ruhen, vom Tempelinneren werden Suḫ- und Men-Krone wahrlich gewunden – Ama’ušumgal (sprach dort) den Preis! In Kulaba, auf dem weiten Platz hat er die Men-Krone empfangen – Oh Utu, Ištaran und Nin’um, (mit) Fangnetz, Bogen und Lapislazuli-Keule! - Ninniĝar (sprach dort) den Preis!“

Cf. Innanas Gang zur Unterwelt 17, wo eine Art Turban als „Men-Krone der Steppe“ bezeichnet wird. Zu šu bad als alte Graphik für šu ba-ti Keetman 2020. Drei Götter stehen bei der Verleihung der Krone mit ihren Emblemen dabei: Die Götter Utu und Ištaran, die beide mit Rechtsprechung zu tun haben und Innana unter dem Namen Nin‘um.

Wenn es stimmt, dass die Hymne auf Lisi ein Sonderfall ist, dann fragt man sich, warum die eigentlichen Zame Hymnen mit Ninniĝara enden. Nach dem Aufbau der Hymnen müsste Kulaba ihr Kultort sein. Das spricht gegen eine Erscheinungsform der Heilgöttin Nintin‘uga und für Identifikation mit Innana. Für Innana spricht außerdem, dass Innana einen Tempel é-niĝarĝar-ra in Šuruppak besaß (George 1993, 133, 885), also mit niĝar irgendwie zu verbinden ist, dass mit Umschreibungen für ihren Namen im Text auch sonst gespielt wird (siehe


– 28 –

KL 101 zu Nin-UM; unsicher dnin-UNUG, KL 92f.) und dass die Zame Hymnen mit der Wiederholung der Göttin, die am Anfang so prominent ist, bzw. der Nennung einer Erscheinungsform, abgerundet wären.

Der Begriff niĝar wird mit Geburt assoziiert (Krebernik 2002, 46). Civil 2011, 281-83 plädiert dafür, das häufige Epitheton der Innana nu-gig/ge₁₇ als „mid-wife“ zu übersetzen. Das geht vielleicht zu weit, denn die Berufsbezeichnungen nu-ge₁₇ und šà-zu „Hebamme“ stehen nebeneinander (WF 74 viii 13; xii 6) und šabsūtu „Hebamme“ ist nur mit šà-zu, nicht mit nu-ge₁₇ geglichen, während dieses mit qadištu geglichen ist. Siehe aber šabsūtum ina bīt qadišti liḫdu ali alittum ulladuma „Möge sich die Hebamme im Haus der Qadištum freuen, wo die Mutter gebiert“ Atram-ḫasīs I 290f. Nach der mythischen Geburt des Eannatum nimmt Innana als erste das Kind auf den Arm, gibt ihm den Namen und reicht es dann der Ninḫursaĝa weiter, die es wohl das erste Mal säugt (Geierstele Vs. iv 18-29). Also lässt sich auch mit der Nennung der Innana als dnin-niĝarx eine Anspielung auf den Anfang verbinden. In der ersten Hymne heißt es kul-aba₄ ki en dú „Kulaba, Ort wo der En geboren wird“ gesprochen von dnin-irigal₄ und dann in der nächsten, von Innana gesprochenen Hymne é šà šeg₁₂ kul-aba₄ en nun dú-dú „Haus, Inneres der Ziegelmauern von Kulaba, das die fürstlichen En gebiert“. Dass Ninniĝar in SF 4 und 5 nach Nintinuga genannt wird, mag mit ihrem Bezug zur Gynäkologie zusammenhängen. In SF 1 steht sie bereits auf Platz 14, direkt nach Ningal, während sich Nintinuga hinter AN.AN nin-tin-ug₅!([E]ZEN] in XX 8ʹ verbergen könnte und jedenfalls weit entfernt stand.

Die Interpretation von NUN als eridu ohne Determinativ in 31 wirft die Frage nach der Interpretation von Z. 44 auf. KL 54: eridu(NUN)ki KI.LAK496mušen diĝir „Eridug, (place) of the kib birds of the goddess”. Drei Texte, die in Z. 31 für eridu (wenn richtig interpretiert) nur NUN schreiben, schreiben in 44 NUN.KI. LAK496 wird von LAK494 = íb, dum in allen drei Texten klar unterschieden, aber in KL 100 als ibx gedeutet. LAK496 hat größere Ähnlichkeit mit eger etwa bei Gudea. Beide Zeichen sind die Seitenansicht eines Unterkörpers in Schrittstellung bis zu einer Schärpe über der Hüfte, wozu die Lesung íb qablu „Hüfte, Taille“ und ÍBx3 utuplu „Schärpe“, túgíb-lá nēbeḫu „Gürtel“ passen. Der Unterschied ist zunächst, dass bei LAK494 die Füße weggelassen wurden, während sie bei LAK496 angedeutet werden und in RTC 1 ii 3 ú/bu₁₁-dumx(LAK496) gut zu sehen sind (Lagaš vor Urnanše). Der Name ist nicht geklärt, aber íb und eger scheinen nicht zu passen. In Nik. 1, 42 wird ein Feld GÁNA-KA-dumx-ma genannt, das in RTC 70 GÁNA-KA.KA-dumx(-kam) geschrieben wird (beide Enentarzi 4). Neben eger₄(LAK494 = RSP403) gibt es in FD IIIb Lagaš keine gesonderte Form für eger. In Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ wird dum für LAK496 von wohl semitischen Namen in der Names and Professions Liste bestätigt: da-dum (123) und im-tum (103; 202). Für íb spricht il-íbki in ED Geographic List 270, gelesen nach Ebla ì-li-biki (Civil 2010, 199; OIP 99, 91). In Instructions of Shuruppak (IAS 256) v 11 steht LAK494 für [e]ger (Alster 2005, 179). Gudea Zyl. B ii 10 schreibt eger als LAK496, am Ende des Zylinders ist das Zeichen aber um Striche zwischen den Füßen erweitert.

Trotz der vielleicht durch eine Vorlage entstandenen ungleichen Verteilung erscheint es möglich, dass LAK496 gegenüber der in Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ vorherrschenden Form LAK494 lediglich eine ausführlichere graphische Variante darstellt. Damit kommen wir zum gleichen Resultat wie KL, dass eine Lesung íb bzw. ibx an dieser Stelle nicht ausgeschlossen ist. Um alle Zeichen unterzubringen könnte man lesen eridu ki-ki-íbmušen an „Eridu, Kikib-Vogel am Himmel“ oder eridu dki-ki-ibxmušen „Eridu, Kikib-Vogel“. Letztere Interpretation ist vorzuziehen, da Eridu eher mit der Erde als mit dem Himmel zu verbinden ist. Zu vergleichen wären zumindest für die Bildungsweise neben dem ki(-ib/íb)mušen und späterem kibmušen, kib-kibmušen = kipkippu auch kab-kabmušen = kapkappu, šeg₅-šeg₅/ši-ig-ši-ig/ši-ši-igmušen. Der dki-kimušen erscheint als Gott in Z. 100, ist aber nicht der einzige Vogel mit Gottesdeterminativ. Vgl. dḫa-jàmušen „Pfau“, dnin-ninnámušen „Uhu“, dburu₅/dn[in]-buru₅[mušen] „Sperling“ und einige weitere in SF 1.³ Vielleicht ist dki-ki-íbmušen auch nur eine etwas andere Wortform oder Schreibung zu dki-kimušen.

Die Z. 103, 105 und 91 sind identisch mit IAS 282 viiiʹ 8ʹ; 10ʹ; 12ʹ. IAS 282 ist ein epischer Text, der wie die Zame Hymnen zur Minderheit der literarischen Texte aus Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ gehört, die nicht in UGN-Schreibweise vorliegen. Wahrscheinlich sind die Zame Hymnen ein Kompendium von Auszügen der weitgehend verlorenen sumerischen Literatur ihrer Zeit. Woher sonst sollten auch all diese poetischen Bilder für Götter und Orte kommen?


– 29 –

Anmerkungen 1. In Keetman 2020 hat sich der Autor noch ohne Kenntnis der Bearbeitung mit Teilaspekten befasst. Die

Interpretation von x bad in Z. 22 (24) als eine archaisierende Schreibung von bàd „Stadtmauer“ ist aber zu kompliziert. KL 34: gurun bad „which opens flowers“ überzeugt eher.

2. Lugalbanda und Lamma-Ninsumun. Zum Text zuletzt Lisman 2018-19. 3. Für die Vögel Veldhuis 2004, 251f. 258f. 260f. 272-75; 284, CAD K 397a und SF 1 viii 23, SF 4. Für „Uhu“

Keetman 2021. In Stadhouders 2021 ist nun ein Omen veröffentlicht in dem ein eššebu (dnin-ninnámušen) beschrieben wird. Demnach ist der Vogel braun wie eine Dattel und kleiner als ein Geier. Die Frage, ob es sich um einen „Uhu“ oder eine „Kornweihe“ (circus cyaneus, engl. „hen harrier“) handelt, ist durch die Farbe nicht zu entscheiden. Beide Vögel können ein teilweise braunes Gefieder haben und sehen sich darin manchmal ähnlich. Beide Vögel sind kleiner als ein Geier, aber der auch im Irak vorkommende Eurasische Uhu ist deutlich größer als die Kornweihe, was den Vergleich mit dem größten Vogel wahrscheinlicher macht. Der Vergleich könnte aber auch durch die ähnliche Farbe des zuvor erwähnten Geiers begründet sein. Die Kornweihe ist jedoch kein Nachtvogel und es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass ihr Rufe in der Nacht zugeschrieben werden wie dem dnin-ninnámušen.

Bibliographie

ALSTER, B. 2005: Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, Bethesda. CIVIL, M. 2010: The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection, CUSAS 12, Bethesda. — 2011: The Law Collection of Ur-Namma, in: A. R. GEORGE (Hg.): Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and

Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection, CUSAS 17, Bethesda, 221-86. KEETMAN, J. 2020: Gilgameš in Abū Ṣalābīḫ?, NABU 2020/101. — 2021: Eulen in Mesopotamien NABU 2021/4, cf. NABU 2021/29. KREBERNIK, M. 2002: Zur Struktur und Geschichte des älteren sumerischen Onomastikons, in: M. P. STRECK

und S. WENINGER (Hg.): Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik, AOAT 296, Münster, 1-74. KREBERNIK, M. und J.J.W. LISMAN 2020: The Sumerian Zame Hymns from Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ. With an

Appendix on the Early Dynastic Colophons, dubsar 12, Münster. LISMAN, J.J.W. 2018-19: The (inchoate) Marriage of Lugalbanda and Ninsumuna, JEOL 47, 73-89. STADHOUDERS, H. 2021: The ornithomantic chapter Iṣṣūru šikinšu: a new member of the Šikinšu family of

treatises, NABU 2021/117. VELDHUIS, N. 2004: Religion, Literature, and Scholarship. The Sumerian Composition “Nanše and the

Birds”, CM 22, Leiden.

Jan KEETMAN <[email protected]>

14) Another Sumerian model contract — Sumerian model contracts received much attention in recent years. A substantial number of them are now available in publications (e.g., Spada 2011; 2014; 2018; George and Spada 2019) and online in the Oracc-project “Old Babylonian Model Contracts,” which currently hosts 354 individual manuscripts (http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/obmc/; last accessed January 2022). Writing contracts was part of the Old Babylonian scribal curriculum. In the current reconstruction of scribal training in Nippur model contracts appear at the last stage of the elementary education. Contracts combine a number of different elements that were acquired beforehand: personal names, metrology, commodities, legal expressions, a rudimentary verbal paradigm.

In this short note I publish for the first time a new manuscript in the Yale Babylonian Collection, which was overlooked before. The model contracts housed in the Collection were published by Walter R. Bodine in a monograph in 2014. Bodine’s publication contains editions and discussions of six manuscripts containing model contracts. Most noteworthy among them are the large multi-column tablet NBC 7800 and the fragment of a clay cylinder YBC 11121 with collections of model contracts. The remaining texts are Type III-tablets. In the course of the “Digitization of the Yale Babylonian Collection”-Project a new manuscript could be identified. The small tablet NBC 10368 (measurements: 47 × 36 × 28 mm) contains the text of a model contract known so far only from another Type III-tablet in the Schøyen Collection. This tablet was recently published as CUSAS 43, 43 (text A, below).

The tablet is inscribed in a rather crude hand. The first line containing the amount of barley to be loaned appears to have been squeezed in and possibly was first omitted by the scribe. After the final ruling the reverse remained uninscribed. However, the blank space shows a number of remnants of a previous inscription. It seems plausible to assume that this clay tablet was used a number of times as practice piece.


– 30 –

This is not uncommon, particularly for Type III-tablets (see, e.g., Wagensonner 2020: 54–55). Except for the end, the text runs fairly parallel to the Schøyen tablet. Some sign remains, probably from a previous inscription, are also visible on the tablet’s top edge. There is not enough space in the break to assume a (DIŠ) dnisaba, that can occasionally be found on scholarly tablets.

Manuscripts A MS 3308 CUSAS 43, 43 CDLI P252249 B NBC 10368 Fig. 1 CDLI P301304

Fig. 1. Photograph and drawing of

NBC 10368 (YPM BC 013336)

Score Transliteration

Obverse 1 A o,1 [–] še gur 7 A o,7 še i₃-⸢aĝ₂⸣-e B o,1 ⸢10⸣ še gur B o,7 še i₃-⸢aĝ₂⸣-e

2 A o,2 [š]u-la₂ maš₂ nu-tuku 8 A o,8 ⸢tukum⸣-bi B o,2 šu-la₂ maš₂ nu-⸢tuku⸣ B o,8 tuku[m-b]i

3 A o,3 ki DINGIR-ra-bi 9 A o,9 iti ⸢šeg₁₂⸣-[a] B o,3 ki DINGIR-ra-b[i] B o,9 iti ⸢šeg₁₂⸣-a

4 A o,4 mdUTU-⸢na-ṣir⸣ 10 A o,10 še nu-ni-⸢aĝ₂-e⸣ B o,4 mdUTU-na-ṣi-ir B r,1 še nu-⸢ni⸣-aĝ₂-⸢e⸣

5 A o,5 šu ba-an-⸢ti⸣ 11 A o,11 še u₃ maš₂-bi i₃-⸢aĝ₂⸣-e B o,5 šu ba-an-ti B r,2 še maš₂ ĝa₂-⸢ĝa₂⸣-de₃

6 A o,6 iti šeg₁₂-⸢a⸣ 12 A o,12 ⸢mu⸣ lugal-la-bi in-pa₃ B o,6 iti ⸢šeg₁₂⸣-a B (omitted)

Translation 1 Ten kor of barley – 2 a qīptum loan, without interest – 3 from Ilum-rabi, 4 did Šamaš-nāṣir 5 receive. 6 In month III 7 he will measure the barley. 8 If 9 in month III 10 he does not measure the barley, 11 the barley (and its) interest are to be paid. (A: he will measure the barley and its interest. 12 He has sworn by the king’s name.)


– 31 –

Comments

(1) Although squeezed and slightly damaged, the numeral is likely 10.

(2) For qīptum written logographically šu-la₂ see the remarks in Stol 1998: 884.

(11) The only significant variant between both manuscripts is in the last lines. The new text omits the oath formula (line 12). More noteworthy is the variant in line 11. Instead of the expression še u₃ maš₂-bi i₃-⸢aĝ₂⸣-e, “he will measure the barley and its interest,” the new text has še maš₂ ĝa₂-⸢ĝa₂⸣-de₃, “the barley (and its) interest are to be paid.” For this expression see also the collection of model contracts on a four-sided prism in the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University, Atlanta/GA (CDLI P433189), Side B, iii:8ʹ (Reid and Spada 2020: 46).

References

BODINE, W. R. (2014) How Mesopotamian scribes learned to write legal documents. A study of the Sumerian model contracts in the Babylonian Collection at Yale University. Lewiston/NY.

GEORGE, A. R., and G. SPADA (2019) Old Babylonian Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Part 2: School Letters, Model Contracts, and Related Texts. University Park.

REID, J. N., and G. SPADA (2020) “From Oslo to Atlanta: An Old Babylonian Prism Collecting Model Contracts,” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 93: 37–58.

SPADA, G. (2011) “A Handbook from the Eduba’a: An Old Babylonian Collection of Model Contracts,” ZA 101: 204–245.

— (2014) “Two Old Babylonian Model Contracts,” CDLJ 2014:2. — (2018) Sumerian Model Contracts from the Old Babylonian Period in the Hilprecht Collection Jena, TMH

NF 11, Wiesbaden. STOL, M. (1998) “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit,” in: D. CHARPIN, D. O. EDZARD, and

M. STOL (eds.) Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit (OBO 160/4; Fribourg and Göttingen): 643–975.

WAGENSONNER, K. (2020) “Larsa Schools: A Palaeographic Journey,” in: E. DEVECCHI, J. MYNÁŘOVÁ, and G. G. W. MÜLLER (eds.) Current Research in Cuneiform Palaeography 2. Proceedings of the Workshop organised at the 64th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Innsbruck 2018 (Gladbeck): 41–86.

Klaus WAGENSONNER <[email protected]>

15) The list Lugal-me, some preliminary notes — The new volume by Alhena Gadotti and Alexandra Kleinerman, Elementary Education in Early Second Millennium BCE Babylonia (CUSAS 42) provides a wealth of information for the study of scribal education in the Old Babylonian period. The present note focuses on one specific group of texts, the lists of personal names. Among the short exercises found on the so-called Type IV-tablets there is a good number of Sumerian personal names starting with the element l u g a l . As the authors indicate, these short assemblages of names are unparalleled. As will be shown below, quite a number of them, however, are extracts from a scholarly composition that collects these names. To my knowledge, the most complete source is a seven-sided prism, NBC 8495, whose publication is currently in preparation (here source A). This prism dating either to the Ur III period or early Old Babylonian period, is written in a neat scribal hand. It ends in a short colophon providing the number of entries: [in tota]l: 212 names (starting with) lugal (m u l u g a l ). Most of the names included in this list are well-attested in the documentation from the last third of the third millennium BCE (compare the list in Andersson 2012: 298–413). The prism is broken into two pieces of roughly equal height. The antiquities dealer clearly shaved down the fragmentary ends. The gap between both pieces, however, does not exceed three lines. While the prism is rather well-preserved, one side, Side E, is completely destroyed, and Side D is rather damaged. This manuscript also preserves the list’s incipit: Lugal-ME. In fact, the first entries of this list of Sumerian personal names are reminiscent of the list Ur-ME:

1 lugal-ME ur-ME 2 lugal-teš₂ ur-teš₂ 3 lugal-a ur-a

Based on what is presented below and what we know about the latter list, neither of the two is attested at Nippur (Peterson 2011: 254). Assemblages of names formed with the element l u g a l are


– 32 –

comparatively rare in Nippur. They did not form a separate compendium, but were part of a larger composition that contains three sections with initial l u ₂, l u g a l , and u r . According to its incipit this list can be referred to as Lu₂-den-lil₂ (Peterson 2011: 251).

The text on the prism is partially paralleled by the fragment of a Type I-tablet, YBC 4498, which certainly dates to the Old Babylonian period (here source B). Already published are two other Type I-tablets. TIM 9, 91 is the center fragment of a large multi-column tablet. It appears that this fragment once belonged to a compilation tablet. Lugal-ME was certainly preceded by another composition. The list ends in rev. iʹ. The last preserved column on the reverse contains lines from Lipit-Eštar B (lines 32–44). Another fragmentary source is UET 7, 77 from Ur. Only the obverse with three columns is preserved on this fragment. Thanks to the new sources, this fragment can securely be placed within the composition. The column length appears to correspond to the prism. This also seems roughly to be the case with source B. The text was also known in Susa. MDP 27, 191 is the fragment of a cylinder preserving remnants of three columns. Thus, we have the following main sources for the composition Lugal-ME:

A NBC 8495 CDLI P289617 B YBC 4498 CDLI P305735 C TIM 9, 91 CDLI P223386 D UET 7, 77 CDLI P347040 E MDP 27, 191 CDLI P369938

Below, I present suggestions for the respective Type IV tablets published in CUSAS 42 and identify them as manuscripts or extracts of the personal name list Lugal-ME. I would like to thank Alexandra Kleinerman for sending me photos of these tablets. They helped to confirm the identifications. A Type III tablet preserving entries of the list is AUCT 5, 219 (CDLI P249352; see Peterson 2021: 104, note 3). Its entries correspond to source A, Side B,9ʹ –C,3. Al-esawee and Alezzi 2021 published an Old Akkadian exercise tablet with names that may derive from a version of our list (personal communication: B. R. Foster). Together with the texts in CUSAS 42 I present further published and unpublished sources. As this is only a work in progress, the list is of course not exhaustive. The provenienced texts originate from Isin, Ur, Uruk, Kiš, and even Susa. The unpublished sources were gathered from CDLI, wherever there was an image available, and through the data collected by the project “Digitization of the Yale Babylonian Collection” (funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Council on Library & Information Resources). All these extracts are listed here in the sequence as they appear in the main sources:

Extract 1 (UET 6, 795 = CDLI P346832; Ur): Although very damaged this lentil certainly preserves the first three entries of the composition, Lugal-me, Lugal-[te]š₂, and ⸢Lugal⸣-a. These entries are preserved in source A, Side A,1–3 (Fig. 1).

Extract 2 (CUSAS 42, 123 = CUNES 52-17-087 || FLP 2086 = CDLI P117400): The damaged entries on this Type IV-tablet in CUSAS 42 can now be confidently read thanks to source A, Side A,7–9: lugal-ĝiss[u], lugal-niĝ₂-zu, and lugal-⸢ku₃-zu⸣ (Fig. 2). See further source D, i 3ʹ–5ʹ. The lentil has a central hole. This feature is also visible on Extracts 4 and 19.

Extract 3 (MS 2319/5 = CDLI P251556 || MS 2268/2 = CDLI P251476 || PARS 12/01, 49 = CDLI P273816): The three entries are reminiscent of source A, Side A,12–14 (Fig. 3). For the second name, however, the first lentil has lugal-dul₃ (or lugal-sur₂) instead of lugal-si₄. The second lentil reads here lugal-si. The lentil in the Cotsen Collection is parallel to source A.

Extract 4 (Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; X.3.318 = CDLI P433290): This lentil contains four entries that are paralleled by Source A, Side A,4ʹ–7ʹ (Fig. 4). The tablet is pierced in the upper center (compare Extracts 2 and 19):

1. lugal–an-ne₂–ba-de₆–kiri₄-šu-bar-ĝal₂ (the prism has ba-ĝal₂) 2. lugal–dištaran-ke₄–di-ku₅–dumu-abzu (the prism has gen₇ instead of ke₄) 3. lugal-ab₂-be₂ 4. lugal-abzu (the prism has here abzu-a).

Extract 5 (CUSAS 42, 109 = CUNES 49-02-051 || UET 6, 791 = CDLI P346828; Ur || Malayeri 2014: 121, No. 74; Susa): The three entries appear to be identical to source A, Side A,9ʹ–12ʹ (Fig. 5). The prism as well as the lentil from Ur confirm the reconstruction of the first name as Lugal-hi-li-an-na. The


– 33 –

second name, Lugal-e₂, appears as Lugal-e on the prism; the third name, Lugal-e₂-KU₅-re, is rendered Lugal-en₃-tar-re on the prism. Though very fragmentary, source C seems to have as the second name [lugal]-⸢en₃⸣ (obv. iiʹ 15ʹ). For the name Lugal-en₃/₈-tar(-su(₁)₃) see Andersson 2012: 324. The lentil from Susa is very fragmentary, but may be identified as the same extract.

Fig. 1. Source A, Side A,1–3 Fig. 2. Source A, Side A,7–9

Fig. 3. Source A, Side A,12–14 Fig. 4. Source A, Side A,4ʹ–7ʹ

Extract 6 (MS 2319/1 = CDLI P251552): This slightly damaged lentil starts one entry later than the previous one (compare source A, Side A,10ʹ–12ʹ). The first entry was possibly Lugal-⸢e₂⸣; the second one reads Lugal-e₂-⸢KU₅⸣-re parallel to the extract CUSAS 42, 109.

Extract 7 (MDP 27, 249 = CDLI P369992; Susa): The three entries on this lentil correspond to source A, Side B,6–8 (Fig. 6). For this text see also Malayeri 2014: 127, No. 94. The first name can probably be reconstructed to Lugal-gu₂-en-[ne].

Extract 8 (YBC 7285 = CDLI P308246): The extract on this Type IV tablet is paralleled by source A, Side B,9–11 (Fig. 6). The first entry reads Lugal-su₃-ud, but appears as Lugal-su₃-aĝ₂ on the prism. This is also confirmed by source D ii 4ʹ.

Extract 9 (CUSAS 42, 120 = CUNES 51-04-043 || YBC 7336 = CDLI P308286): The three names on these two lentils are duplicated by entries in Lugal-ME. They are preserved in source A, Side B,11–13 (Fig. 7).

Extract 10 (CUSAS 42, 110 = CUNES 49-03-027): The extract here is paralleled by source A, Side B,13–15 (Fig. 8). The first name written lugal-en-ku₃ on the lentil, appears as lugal-enku(ZA₃.K[U₆]) on the prism. Another parallel is source D ii 8ʹ–10ʹ, whose first entry also has lugal-enku!(ZA₃.GIR). Instead of Lugal-kalag-ĝal₂ and Lugal-ĝuruš-zid read Lugal-nir-ĝal₂ and Lugal-nir-zi.

Extract 11 (CUSAS 42, 114 = CUNES 50-02-112): The final signs in the first two entries are broken, but can be reconstructed based on source A (Side B,7ʹ–9ʹ) and source B (obv. iʹ 6ʹ–8ʹ) (Fig. 9). The first name reads lugal-ĝa₂-ne₂-ge (source A). The damaged source B ends this entry with -gen₇. The second name, read lugal-uš-bu-[x], should be read lugal-uš-MUŠ-[e] instead. For this name see Andersson 2012: 400–401; the sign MUŠ can be read sux here. The third name, read lugal-ban₃-da-ĝu₁₀, is to be read according to the new sources lugal-ibila-ĝu₁₀.


– 34 –

Extract 12 (MS 2037/4 = CDLI P250804): In both, sources B and E the entry Lugal-ibila-ĝu₁₀ is followed by Lugal-ad-da. The presence of this variant helps to place the lentil MS 2037/4 into the composition. It contains the names Lugal-ad-da, Lugal-gu₂-gal, and Lugal-gu₂-tuku (Fig. 9, right).

Extract 13 (Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; X.3.334 = CDLI P433306): The three names on this lentil are paralleled in source A, Side B,12ʹ–14ʹ and source B obv. iʹ 13ʹ (Fig. 10). The second name reads lugal-en-u₂ instead of lugal-en-nu.

Fig. 5. Source A, Side A,9ʹ–12ʹ Fig. 6. Source A, Side B,6–10

Fig. 7. Source A, Side B,11–13 Fig. 8. Source A, Side B,13–15

Extract 14 (MDP 27, 202 = CDLI P369945; Susa): This lentil contains two entries of the list Lugal-ME repeated twice on the obverse: Lugal-ĝešgem and Lugal-he₂-du₇ (see also Malayeri 2014: 120, No. 73). These correspond to source A, Side C,2–3 (Fig. 11).

Extract 15 (CUSAS 42, 88 = CUNES 48-06-384): The sequence of the names Lugal-he₂-du₇, Lugal-he₂-ĝal₂ and Lugal-he₂ is paralleled in source A, Side C,3–5 (Fig. 11).

Extract 16 (CUSAS 42, 112 = CUNES 49-13-145): This lentil with a rather abraded surface may contain entries that are paralleled by source A, Side C,6–8 (Fig. 12). The first entry reads Lugal-ezen. Instead of Lugal-mah-e, the third entry needs to be read Lugal-kas₄-e. The second name is possibly read Lugal-iti!(T: UD)-da-u₃-du. The prism has here Lugal-⸢iti⸣-da-NI-/tu (see also following extract).

Extract 17 (AUWE 23, 216 = CDLI P349211; Uruk): According to A. Cavigneaux (1996: 95), this lentil may contain the beginning of a prayer to the moon god. Although the left side of this lentil is broken off, it can certainly be identified as extract from Lugal-ME. These entries are preserved in source A, Side C,7–9 (Fig. 12):

1. [luga]l-iti-da-u₃-tu (the prism has ni instead of u₃) 2. [lugal]-kas₄-e 3. [luga]l-šeš-ĝu₁₀

Extract 18 (CUSAS 42, 115 = CUNES 50-02-113): This short extract contains three entries, but the blank spaces above and below the text are filled with wedge impressions. The entries are parallel to source A, Side C,9–12 (Fig. 13). The entries are preceded by the name lugal-šeš-ĝ[u₁₀], but the signs on the lentil seem not to preserve this entry. See also source D, iii 6ʹ (lugal-šeš-[ĝu₁₀]). These entries are also preserved in source C, obv. iiiʹ 5ʹ–8ʹ.


– 35 –

Extract 19 (NBC 8049 = CDLI P299495): This extract with a central piercing (compare Extracts 2 and 4) starts one entry after the previous extract. The entries correspond to source A, Side C,11–13 (Fig. 13).

Extract 20 (CUSAS 42, 121 = CUNES 51-04-045 || CUSAS 42, 122 = CUNES 51-04-050): The entries on these two duplicate tablets are paralleled in source B, obv. iiʹ 1ʹ–3ʹ (Fig. 14). The beginning of this column is rather damaged, but the sign remains can now be clearly identified. Thanks to source C the length of the gap between the two pieces of the prism NBC 8495 can be confirmed.

Fig. 9. Source A, Side B,7ʹ–9ʹ (left) and Source B, obv. iʹ 6ʹ–11ʹ (right)

Fig. 10. Source A, Side B,12ʹ–14ʹ (left) and Source B, obv. iʹ 13ʹ–15ʹ (right)

Fig. 11. Source A, Side C,2–5 Fig. 12. Source A, Side C,6–8

Extract 22 (CUSAS 42, 117 = CUNES 50-02-138 || UET 6, 792 = CDLI P346829; Ur): The three entries on this Type IV-tablet are parallel to both sources A (Side C,6ʹ–8ʹ) and B (obv. iiʹ 10ʹ–12ʹ) (Fig. 16). The first name is read lugal-si-sa₂ here, but appears as lugal-si-ĝar in the other sources (see Andersson 2012: 382); the name Lugal-si-sa₂ appears also later in the list (see Extracts 25 and 26). On the reverse of the lentil from Ur the scribe wrote the entries in reverse order. In Lugal-ME, Lugal-si-ĝar follows the name Lugal-mah-di. The vicinity of si-ĝar and mah(₂)-di is also attested in the Old Babylonian version of the Fara Name List SF 29 (with duplicates). The second name should be read lugal-sa-par₄ (see Andersson 2012: 381).


– 36 –

Extract 23 (Klein and Sefati 2019: 206, Lentil 4 || MS 2319/4 = CDLI P251555): The entries on these lentils duplicate source A, Side C,8ʹ–10ʹ and source B, obv. iiʹ 12ʹ–14ʹ (Fig. 16). It should be noted that the prism clearly differentiates between the signs KALAM (REC 421) and UN (REC 420).

Extract 24 (CUSAS 42, 113 = CUNES 49-13-146): The names on this Type IV-tablet are also paralleled on the prism. The second name, read lugal-šu-e₂-an-na, is according to both sources A (Side C,17ʹ) and B (obv. iiʹ 19ʹ), lugal-šu-luh-an-na and lugal-šu-luh-a-ni respectively (Fig. 17). The last entry, read lugal-mi₂-us₂-sa₂!-ma-ni-še₃, is to be read lugal-ĝešdan(MI₂.US₂.DAM)-ni-še₃ according to source B (obv. iiʹ 20ʹ) and lugal-MI₂.US₂-ni-še₃ in source A (Side C,16ʹ).

Extract 25 (CUSAS 42, 108 = CUNES 48-06-396): The three entries on this Type IV-tablet are identical to source B, obv. iiʹ 22ʹ–24ʹ (Fig. 18). Instead of Lugal-ud-da read lugal-ERIN₂!.PIRIG. The sign PIRIG is damaged on the lentil, but enough is still visible. This compound sign was thoroughly discussed in Mittermayer 2005: 82–85. It also appears in contemporaneous sources such as in a fragmentary line of Sîn-iddinam E, iv 16 (see Wagensonner 2011: 41).

Fig. 13. Source A, Side C,10–13 Fig. 14. Source B, obv. iiʹ 1ʹ–3ʹ

Fig. 15. Source A, Side B,12ʹ–14ʹ (left) and Source B, obv. iiʹ 5ʹ–7ʹ

Extract 26 (CUSAS 42, 124 = CUNES 52-20-329): This extract starts one entry after the previous one. The entries correspond to source B, obv. iiʹ 23ʹ–rev. i 2 (Fig. 18). The last entry reads [lugal-gaba-š]u-ĝar-nu-tuku. Instead of GAR the lentil has lugal-gaba-šu-ku₆-nu-/tuku. The last sign is written beneath. In source B, it seems to be preceded by another name: [Lugal]-u.

Extract 27 (Wilcke 2018, No. 141 = CDLI P526259; Isin): The entries of this damaged lentil can now be fully read thanks to source B, rev. i 5–7 (Fig. 19): Lugal-mi₂-d[u₁₁-ga], Lugal-ĝešmi[tum]-⸢an⸣-[na], and Lugal-du₁₀-g[a] (the small fragment is correctly placed on the photo [http://publikationen.badw.de/en/A1/abb#564; accessed February 2022], but is misplaced on the handcopy).

Extract 28 (YBC 7329 = CDLI P308280): This lentil shares its first entry with the last one on the previous extract. It is paralleled by source B, rev. i 6–8 (Fig. 19). Instead of Lugal-ša₃-su₃, the last entry ends in the sign ŠID.


– 37 –

Fig. 16. Source A, Side C,6ʹ–10ʹ (left) and Source B, obv. iiʹ 10ʹ–14ʹ (right)

Fig. 17. Source A, Side C,14ʹ–16ʹ (left) and Source B, obv. iiʹ 18ʹ–20ʹ (right)

Fig. 18. Source B, obv. iiʹ 23ʹ–rev. i 2 Fig. 19. Source B, rev. i 6–8

Extract 29 (CUSAS 42, 89 = CUNES 48-04-084): These three names appear on source B (YBC 4498) rev. i 9–11 (Fig. 20). Side D on the prism NBC 8495 is fairly damaged here. I read the third name lugal-eg₂-pa₅-re. The juxtaposition of eg₂, “dyke,” and pa₅, “ditch,” is well attested (compare the name Lugal-eg₂-pa₅-mah; Andersson 2012: 322). The first name is read lugal-lu₂-NI-EŠ₂ by the authors of CUSAS 42. Here, source B reads lugal-šiten₂(KI.EN.DU)-ni-še₃. Although damaged, the prism appears to add another entry, which may in fact correspond to the CUNES-text. A name lugal-lu₂-ni occurs already earlier in the text (source A, Side A,15).

Extract 30 (Sb 11231 = Malayeri 2014: 139–140, No. 129; Susa): This lentil contains two entries repeated on the obverse: Lugal-kar-re and Lugal-gal-zu. They appear to correspond to source C, ivʹ 5ʹ–6ʹ.

Extract 31 (CUSAS 42, 513 = CUNES 50-02-106): The content of the entries on this lentil are probably not humans. It is rather another extract from Lugal-ME. The entries correspond to source B rev. i 16–18 (Fig. 21). The lentil is nicely written (see the photo on Plate 19). The first name is certainly [Lug]al-šudu₃-de₃. The sign inscribed in KA in source B may be NE. The next name reads [Lug]al-KA×MU-KA×MU-de₃ on the lentil. The inscribed signs in source B are, however, difficult to identify (the second one looks like MI).


– 38 –

Extract 32 (YBC 8937 = CDLI P309733): The last extract was previously identified as a proverb and hence published in Alster 1997: 333 and Plate 131. Although the text on the lentil is written on three lines, it only contains two entries. The entries belong to Lugal-ME and are paralleled by source A, Side G,3ʹ–4ʹ: Lugal–dub-sar and Lugal–dur-mah–/i₇-da–gi₁₆-ba (Fig. 22). The prism uses as verbal base kib instead of gi₁₆. These entries are also partially preserved in source C, rev. iʹ 6ʹ–7ʹ.

Fig. 20. Source B, rev. i 10–12 Fig. 21. Source B, rev. i 16–18

There are many more school exercises containing names with initial lugal. Some of them can be identified as sources of the name list Lu₂-den-lil₂, which is fairly well attested in Nippur, but also other places: e.g., FLP 2084 (CDLI P117398) and FLP 2099 (CDLI P460497). Questionable are cases such as MDP 27, 250, a lentil that contains names with initial lugal. These cannot be placed in the list at the moment (see Malayeri 2014: 131, No. 106). But future work will certainly identify more manuscripts of this new list of Sumerian personal names.

Fig. 22. Source A, Side G,3ʹ–4ʹ

References

AL-ESAWEE, H. A., and A. M. ALEZZI. 2021. “A Sargonic Learner’s Tablet with an Invocation of the Goddess Nisaba,” JCS 73: 3–8.

ALSTER, B. 1997. Proverbs of Ancient Sumer. The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections, 2 volumes. Bethesda.

ANDERSSON, J. 2012. Kingship in the Early Mesopotamian Onomasticon 2800–2200 BCE. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 28. Uppsala.

CAVIGNEAUX, A. 1996. Uruk. Altbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat Pe XVI–4/5. AUWE 23. Mainz. GADOTTI, A., and A. KLEINERMAN. 2021. Elementary Education in Early Second Millennium BCE Babylonia.

CUSAS 42. University Park. KLEIN, J., and Y. SEFATI. 2019. From the Workshop of the Mesopotamian Scribe. Literary and Scholarly

Texts from the Old Babylonian Period. University Park. MALAYERI, M. 2014. Schülertexte aus Susa. PhD thesis. Tübingen. MITTERMAYER, C. 2005. Die Entwicklung der Tierkopfzeichen. Eine Studie zur syro-mesopotamischen

Keilschriftpaläographie des 3. und frühen 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. AOAT 319. Münster. PETERSON, J. 2011. “The Personal Name Lists in the Scribal Curriculum of Old Babylonian Nippur: an

Overview,” ZA 101: 246–273. ⸻. 2021. “The Sumerian Personal Name List Ur-ab-ba,” Oriens Antiquus III S. N.: 37–126. WAGENSONNER, K. 2011. “New Light on ‘Sîn-iddinam and Iškur’,” KASKAL 8: 11–41. WILCKE, C. 2018. Keilschrifttexte aus Isin – Išān Baḥrīyāt. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Deutschen

Forschungsgemeinschaft unter der Schirmherrschaft der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse – Abhandlungen, München, Neue Folge 143. München.

Klaus WAGENSONNER <[email protected]>


– 39 –

16) Pī Mūti: A Ugaritism in the Hymn to Marduk from Ugarit? — The Hymn to Marduk (RS 25.460; Ug 5 162) is a fragmentary Akkadian text from Ugarit that was probably part of the curriculum in which local scribes were trained. The Babylonian provenance of the Hymn is evinced by its addressee, Marduk, and by the close affinity of some of its themes and phrases to the later Babylonian composition Ludlul bel nēmeqi.1) Nevertheless, scholars have noted the presence of some West-Semitic features in this text, which might attest to a local revision.

For example, while attributing the verb utabbikanni in l. 37 to the Akkadian root t-b-k does not fit the context, the West-Semitic root d-b-q (udabbikanni) is more appropriate,2) as it bears the opposite meaning of the previous verb uparriranni.3) Together, both verbs are aligned with the stylistic formulation of the text: “He dispersed me (but) joined me together.”4) Similarly, whereas an Akkadian derivation of the verb arrasu in l. 22 has yet to be suggested, its derivation from the West-Semitic root r-z-y (in the N-conjugation) is suitable: “I am wasting away from the disease”.5) In addition, as scholars have referred to the doubtful meaning of the verb išmuṭanni (l. 36) in its context;6) a derivation from the West-Semitic verb š-m-ṭ, “to drop”, or even ṣ-m-t (iṣmutanni), “to destroy,” may be a good fit.7) Phonetically, the prohibitive lā tabayyaš in l. 32, “do not come to shame,” testifies to a local declension of the verb bâšu rather than to the common Akkadian lā tabâš/tab’’aš.8) Similarly, the spelling pakrat in l. 9, rather than paḫrat, might be affected by the local pronunciation of a weak kaf.9) In light of these possible West-Semitic linguistic features in a hymn of Babylonian origin that was found at Ugarit, I would like to examine an additional phrase that might be of local, West-Semitic origin.

Line 40 in the Hymn to Marduk may be considered linguistically as “good Akkadian.” Nevertheless, it contains a unique phrase, pī mūti, which is usually translated as “mouth of death,” as in Cohen’s translation, whose edition is the most recent to be published:10)

39ʹ He threw me down but raised me up, iddânni u ušaqqânni 40ʹ He saved me from death’s mouth, ultu pī mūti īkimanni 41ʹ He raised me from the netherworld. ultu erṣeti ušēlânni

Perhaps because pī mūti has no additional attestation in Mesopotamian literature,11) Oshima – following Nougayrol – suggested interpreting this phrase in light of a much more common Akkadian expression, pī karašê (literally, “mouth of annihilation”), occurring in the Prayer for Marduk no. 1 and in other compositions.12) According to Oshima, like the figurative meaning suggested for pī karašê, so should pī mūti be understood as a metaphor for a grave, and not literally as “the mouth of death.”

However, for the Ugaritians, as well as for their neighbouring cultures, the literal meaning of pī mūti was well-known. Among the West-Semitic cultures, the term mūtu not only refers to the concept of “death,” but also serves as the appellation of the lord of the netherworld Mot (“Death”; mt in Ugaritic alphabetical spelling;13) תומ in biblical Hebrew spelling), whose most prominent characteristic is his hunger and eagerness to swallow the living through his mouth (p in Ugaritic alphabetical spelling; הפ in biblical Hebrew spelling). This is deduced from several verses set in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle (KTU 1.4 VII 47–52; VIII 14–20; 1.5 I 6–8; 12–22; II 2–6; 1.6 II 13–23; VI 19–25) as well as in biblical literature (Hab 2:5; Isa 5:14; Prov 30:15–16; Ps 141:7). In the following, two citations from each corpus are provided to clarify the local context of this phrase.

The Ugaritic Baal Cycle relates Baal’s warning to his servant to keep his distance from Mot, lest the latter takes him like a lamb in his mouth (p):

KTU 1.4 VIII 14 “But be careful, …w nġr 15 oh, messenger of the gods. Do not ˁnn . ˀilm . ˀal 16 get close to the son of El, tqrb . l bn . ˀilm 17 Mot, lest he takes you mt . ˀal . yˁdbkm 18 like a lamb in his mouth, k ˀimr . b ph 19 like a kid in the opening k llˀi . b ṯbrn 20 of his maw. You will be crushed.” qnh . tḫtˀan

Mot himself is also proud of his endless appetite and enormous throat (npš): KTU 1.5 I 12 Message of the son of El …tḥm . bn . ˀIlm 13 Mot, word of El’s beloved, mt . hwt . ydd . {bn} ˀIl


– 40 –

14 the hero: “my throat is (huge as) the throat of a lion ġzr . p np {.} š . npš . lbˀim 15 in the wasteland, and (as) the gullet of a ‘snorter’ thw . hm . brlt . ˀanḫr 16 in the sea, and (as) a pool (for which) b ym . hm . brky . tkšd 17 the wild bulls reach, (and as) a spring (for) the herd of deer. rˀumm . ˁn . kdḏ . ˀaylt 18 And indeed, indeed, my throat swallows hm . ˀimt . ˀimt . npš . blt 19 heaps (of things); and indeed, with both ḥmr . p ˀimt . b klˀat 20 my hands I eat, the seven ydy . ˀilḥm . hm . šbˁ 21 portions of mine are in a bowl, and (my) cup mixes ydty . b ṣˁ . hm . ks . ymsk 22 a river…” nhr…

In the biblical corpus, Hab 2:5 and Isa 5:14 are good illustrations of how Mot and his female equivalent, Sheol, served as a simile of greed due to their wide throat ( שפנ ) and mouth ( הפ ):14)

Hab 2:5 Who has opened his throat as wide as Sheol, who is as insatiable as Mawt.

.עבשי אלו תומכ אוהו ושפנ לואשכ ביחרה רשא

Isa 5:14 Assuredly, Sheol has opened wide her throat, and parted her mouth in a measureless gape; and down into her shall go, that splendor and tumult…

.קח-ילבל היפ הרעפו השפנ לואש הביחרה ןכל …הנואשו הנומהו הרדה דריו

In light of this common West-Semitic view of Mot (“Death”) as a hungry figure, and of the absence of such a view in contemporaneous Mesopotamian texts, pī mūti might be considered a ugaritism.15) The Ugaritian scribe, while copying the Babylonian Hymn to Marduk at Ugarit, thus appeared to rephrase a certain unpreserved Akkadian terminology into the more familiar pī Mūti, as he did with additional linguistic and phonetic features of West-Semitic origin.

Notes 1. Due to this affinity, it was even argued that the Hymn to Marduk might be an Old-Babylonian version of a

forerunner to the later Ludlul; see OSHIMA 2011, 206–207. 2 Cf. VON SODEN 1969, 191, who suggests both interpretations. For a view in favor of the West-Semitic

derivation, see KÄMMERER 1998, 162; OSHIMA 2011, 215; DIETRICH 2012, 211–212. For one in favor of the Akkadian derivation, see COHEN 2013, 169, 171; CAD T 8. ARNAUD 2007, 111, 114 suggested: utabbila!nni.

3. Its derivation from p-r-r might be in accordance with Akkadian or West-Semitic roots. 4. DIETRICH 2012 assumes a haplography of the conjugation u before udabbikanni. 5. Cf. VON SODEN 1969, 191, citing Isa 17:4 “ הזרי ורשב ןמשמו ” in this relation; HUEHNERGARD 1989, 175, n. 277;

OSHIMA 2011, 213; DIETRICH 2012, 203; CAD R, s.v. rasû (*razû), p. 183: “WSem lw.”. In contrast, George, apud COHEN 2013, 170 suggested the reading: ar-ṣú-⸢un!⸣, “I yelled out loud,” while Cohen (ibid) viewed this lemma as an “obscure item,” yet denies its West-Semitic origin. ARNAUD 2007, 111-112 reconstructed <a-ḫa->ra-as-su (“<j’exa>mine”).

6. CAD Š2 309a: “extricated (?) me.” COHEN 2013, 169 translated it as “tore” in italic script. 7. For the latter suggestion, cf. DIETRICH 2012, 211 with a similar view, who additionally suggested reading

iṣmudanni with a derivation of a West-Semitic root. 8. Cf. HUEHNERGARD 1989, 42; OSHIMA 2011, 214. 9. Cf. VON SODEN 1989, followed by KÄMMERER 1998, 160, and OSHIMA 2011, 212, who read ḪU as pak.

HUEHNEGARD 1989, 360 suggested reconstructing the lemma as <pu>-ḫu-rat, while ARNAUD 2007, 111–113 suggested BAK-rat, with a unique Syrian reading bukx-rat (“la fille”). KÄMMERER (ibid), followed by OSHIMA (ibid), additionally suggested reading the unexpected sign GI in l. 12, as ḫi (in ḫilṣu) and the local mispronunciation of Akkadian ḫilṣu as ġilṣu.

10. COHEN 2013, 168–169. 11. Note that while the phrase “KA mūti” occurs in CAD P, 471a below the entry pī mūti, the ideogram KA

should be normalized as rigmu; see ibid and CAD R, s.v. rigmu. For the demon dmūtu in The Underworld Vision of a Prince of the first millennium BCE, and in additional references, none of which fits the context of ll. 40ʹ-41ʹ in the Hymn to Marduk, see SIBBING-PLANTHOLT 2020. Some resemblance to this phrase may also be found in the Akkadian compositions (from the late Middle Assyrian period and onwards) Ištar’s Descent, Gilgameš (tablet VI), and Nergal and Ereškigal (the Sultantepe edition) that relate to the fear from the dead (mītūtum) who would consume the living (balṭūtum). This, however, is still very far from the context of the present text.

12. OSHIMA 2001; NOUGAYROL 1968, 272. The semi-equivalent lines in Ludlul V are broken, hence they cannot be of assistance (the translation and transliteration follow Oshima 2014, 106): 5 He saved me [from…] [ina… t]i ēkimanni 6 [He picked] me up [from…] [ina… īs]ipanni


– 41 –

7 He ra[ised] me [from…] [ina… ]-e id[kann]ni 8 He dragged me out from the Hubur-river. ina nāri Ḫubur išdudaanni

Cf. also the introduction in Ludlul I 13-14 (following OSHIMA 2014, 79–80): 13 The one by whose rage burial chambers’ doors ša ina libbatišu uptattâ qabrātum are thrown wide (lit.: open up), 14 (but) at the same time, he raises the fallen man īnūšu ina karašê ušatbi maqtum from annihilation.

13. Note that due to the absence of Mot from most of god-lists, only a single occurrence of his name written in Mesopotamian cuneiform, NAM.ÚŠ, has so far been found; see ROCHE-HAWLEY 2012, 158. The syllabic Akkadian mu-tu in the meaning of “death” is well documented in texts from Ugarit, El-Amarna and Emar (see references in DULAT 589, s.v. mt [II] and ROCHE-HAWLEY, ibid).

14. See further discussion in CASSUTO 1962; HEALEY 1999. 15. Therefore, the view that “the motif of death’s insatiable appetite is well attested throughout the Near East”

(SMITH AND PITARD 2009, 722), which is based on the presumption that the Hymn to Marduk from Ugarit is a version of the Babylonian Ludlul, must be denied. On the contrary, this occurrence should be enumerated with the Ugaritic and biblical occurrences evincing a unique West-Semitic feature.

Bibliography

ARNAUD, D., (2007), Corpus des textes de bibliothèque de Ras Shamra-Ougarit (1936–2000): en sumérien, babylonien et assyrien (AuOrSupp 23), Barcelona.

CASSUTO, U., (1962), “Baal and Mot in the Ugaritic Texts,” IEJ 12, 77–86. COHEN, Y., (2013), Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age, A.R. GEORGE (ed.), (WAW 34), Atlanta. DIETRICH, M., (2012) “ša Marduk adallal ‘Die “Heilkraft” von Marduk preise ich’: Ein ugaritischer

Leidender und sein Verhältnis zu Marduk - RS 25.460 neu interpretiert”, in: H. NEUMANN (ed.), Wissenskultur im Alten Orient: Weltanschauung, Wissenschaften, Techniken, Technologien. 4 Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 20.-22. Februar 2002, Münster, Wiesbaden, 183–223.

HEALEY, J.F., (1999) “Mot,” in: DDD, 598–603. HUEHNERGARD, J., (1989), The Akkadian of Ugarit (HSS 34), Atlanta 1989. KÄMMERER, T.R., (1998), Šimâ milka: Induktion und Reception der mittelbabylonischen Dichtung von

Ugarit, Emār und Tell el-ʿAmarna (AOAT 251), Münster. NOUGAYROL, J., (1968), “162. –(Juste) souffrant (R. S. 25.460)”, in: IDEM et al., Ugaritica 5. Nouveaux textes

accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit, commentaires des textes historiques (Première Partie), Paris, 265–373.

OSHIMA, T.M., (2001), “Two Notes on Expressions with ina pī…; ‘in the mouth of…’ in ‘Prayer to Marduk 1’,” NABU no. 15.

Id., (2011), Babylonian Prayers to Marduk (ORA 7), Tübingen. Id., (2014), Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers: Ludlul Bel Nemeqi and the Babylonian Theodicy (ORA

14), Tübingen. ROCHE-HAWLEY, C., (2012), “Procédés d’écriture des noms de divinités ougaritaines en cunéiforme

mésopotamien,” in: IDEM and R. HAWLEY (eds.), Scribes et érudits dans l’orbite de Babylone: travaux réalisés dans le cadre du projet ANR Mespériph 2007-2011, (OM 9), Paris, 149–178.

SIBBING-PLANTHOLT, I., (2020), “Visible Death and Audible Distress: The Personification of Death (Mūtu) and Associated Emotions as Inherent Conditions of Life in Akkadian Sources,” in: S. HSU and J. LLOP-RADUÀ (eds.), The Expression of Emotions in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, Leiden, 335–389.

SMITH, M.S., and PITARD, W., (2009), The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume II: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3-1.4 (VTSupp 114), Leiden.

VON SODEN, W., (1969), “Bemekungen zu einigen literarischen Texten in akkadischer Sprache aus Ugarit,” UF 1, 189–195.

Noga AYALI-DARSHAN <[email protected]> Dept. of Hebrew and Semitic Languages, Bar-Ilan University (ISRAEL)

17) A cognate for Akk. ḫabāqu? — In a recently published paper,1) Yigal Bloch proposed that Middle Assyrian ḫabiqtu is a spelling of *ḫawiqtu, “turning, going”, from the verb ḫuāqu/ḫâqu (root ḫwq) and likewise, that the verb ḫabāqu means “to go, turn”. His proposal is based on the lexical equations ge₄ = ḫu-


– 42 –

a-qú (CT 18 39, i 32) and ḫa-a-qa = a-la-ku, “to go” (LBAT 1577, i 14ʹ).2) Also mentioned is Akk. ḫâqu, “(a verb of motion)” (CAD Ḫ, 87a and 212b).3) However, no cognates are given for this verb.

A possible cognate may be Hebrew ḥāmaq, which in two texts has a similar meaning.4) One text is wedôdî ḥāmaq cābār, “but my lover had turned (and) gone” (Song of Songs 5:6) and the other is cad mātay titḥammāqîn, “For how long will you waver?” (Jer 31:22, hitpa’el).

In turn, as a cognate Akk. ḫabāqu is definitely preferable either to Arab. ḥamiqa, ḥamuqa, “to be stupid, silly foolish etc.” (AEL, 645; DMWA, 206a) or to Tigre ḥamiqa, “schwach sein oder werden, gering sein, hinsiechen/to be or become weak, to be low, to pine away” (WTS, 61b)5) that have been cited to explain the Hebrew verb ḥāmaq (e.g. in HALOT, 330).6)

Notes 1. BLOCH 2017: 121-122. 2. As cited in AHw 322b, under ḫâqu II. 3. Cf. also Akk. ḫâqu, ḫuâqu, “(mng. unk., vb. of motion)” (CDA, 106b: jB). Curiously, its homograph Akk.

ḫâqu, ḫiāqu: “to mix liquids” (CAD Ḫ, 86-87); “(ver)mischen” (AHw, 342b); “to mix (up)”, “mix, mingle”, Št: “be mixed together” (CDA, 115a) has as yet unnoticed cognates in Harari ḥabäqa, “dissolve by mixing with liquids” and Geez (tä)ḥabqäqä, “be mingled” (EDH, 79a), with the same phonological change.

4. For the interchange between m and b for intervocalic w in Assyrian see GAG §21.b, §21.d and KOUWENBERG 2017: 78-79, esp. §3.3.2.3. See also FALES 2021: 1373 and HACKL 2021: 1436. A prime example is Akk. lawû, lamû, OAkk, OA lawā’um and MA, NA labā’um, labû, “to surround, besiege” (CDA, 179b) and similarly for its derivatives.

5. See also Arab. ḥabaqa, IV: “se montrer docile et de facile composition” (DA-F, 369). 6. The similar-looking Heb. word ḥamûq that appears in the plural in Song 7:2 seems to be completely different:

ḥamûqê yerēkayik may mean either “the smoothness of your thighs” – cf. Arab. ḥwq, “roundness (in the penis)” (AEL I, 672) – or preferably “the tattoos of your thighs” – cf. Mehri ḥōməḳ or ḥəmwəwəḳ, “scab, scar” (ML, 181) – here perhaps a term for an ornamental scar or tattoo. A less likely cognate is Ge’ez ḥaqwe, ḥawqwe, “hip, loin, thighbone” (ConcDG, 19b), since this would result in the tautologous expression “the hipbones of your thighs”.

Bibliography

BLOCH, Y. 2017. “Nomads and the Middle Assyrian State Administration: A New Interpretation of a Letter from Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad and Some Related Matters”, in: R. DE BOER & J. G. DERCKSEN (eds), Private and State in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 58th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Leiden 16–20 July 2012 (Winona Lake IN) 109-130.

FALES, M. 2021. “Neo-Assyrian”, HAL, 1347-1395. HACKL, J. 2021. “Late Babylonian”, HAL, 1431-1458. KOUWENBERG, N. C. L. 2017. A Grammar of Old Assyrian (Leiden/Boston).

Abbreviations

AEL E. W. LANE, An Arabic-English Lexicon, vols I-VIII (London/Edinburgh 1863-1893). ConcDG W. LESLAU, Concise Dictionary of Gecez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden 1989). DA-F A. DE BIBERSTEIN KAZIMIRKSI, Dictionnaire Arabe-Français contenant toutes les racines de la langue

arabe, 2 vols (Paris 1860). DMWA H. WEHR & A. COWAN, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (Wiesbaden 1971). EDH W. LESLAU, Etymological Dictionary of Harari (Los Angeles 1963). GAG W. VON SODEN, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (AnOr 33; Rome 1952). HAL J.-P. VITA (ed.), History of the Akkadian Language. Volume 1. Linguistic Background and Early Periods.

Volume 2. The Second and First Millennia BCE. Afterlife (HdO I 152/1-2; Leiden/Boston 2021). HALOT L. KOEHLER & W. BAUMGARTNER, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (translated

and edited under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson), vols I-V. (Leiden/New York/Köln 1994-2000). LBAT A. J. SACHS & H. HUNGER, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, vol. I: Diaries

from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C. (Vienna 1988). ML T. M. JOHNSTONE, Mehri Lexicon and English-Mehri Word-list With Index of the English definitions

in the Jibbāli Lexicon compiled by G. R. Smith (London/New York 1987). WTS E. LITTMANN & M. HÖFNER, Wörterbuch der Tigrê-Sprache (Wiesbaden 1962).

Wilfred G. E. WATSON <[email protected]> Northumberland (GREAT BRITAIN)


– 43 –

18) Hittite dāri(ya)nu- ‘to weary; to importune’ — In NABU 2015/3: 116 Oğuz Soysal published a new, augmented edition of part of CTH 311.2.B (Naram-Sin in Asia Minor). Soysal (2020: 104–6) presented a newer version with a further additional join and crucially more ample context of the episode of interest here. I follow his readings entirely, but to save space give the text continuously in bound transcription:

KBo 3.17+18+19+DBH 43/2.232+CHDS 3.115+Bo 7303 iii 9–17 (OH/NS) mNARAM-dSÎN-aš ANA dIŠTAR wēškeuwan [(dāiš)] zik=mu taršikeši dankuwaya=wa KUR-e kišširi=tta teḫḫi dIŠTAR-š=a=šši ā[p]pa taraškezzi īt šuppiyaḫḫ[(ut)] šuppayaš GIŠN[(Á-aš)] šeškiaḫḫuti DINGIR.MEŠ=K[(A)] dārinut nu [(DINGIR.MEŠ=KA m)]ugāi mNARA[(M-dSÎN-naš)] šuppiyaḫḫ[(ati šuppay)]aš GIŠNÁ-[(aš)] š[e]iškiške[(uwan d)]āiš DINGIR.M[EŠ=Š]U dārinut [(n)]u DINGIR.MEŠ=ŠU mukiškewan d[(āi)]š

“Naram-Sin began to wail to Ishtar: ‘You kept saying/promising to me: “I will put the dark lands in your hand.”’ But Ishtar kept replying to him: ‘Go! Purify yourself! Repeatedly sleep on a pure bed. Dārinu- your gods and rouse your gods to action!’ Naram-Sin purified himself, began to sleep on a pure bed, dārinu-ed his gods, and began to rouse his gods to action.”

In both works cited, Soysal follows the standard view and translates dārinu- as ‘to implore, beseech, yalvar’, characterizing dārinu- as a “secondary verbal root darinu- beside dariyanu-” (similarly Mouton 2007: 110 ‘appeler’).

For understandable reasons, the correct analysis of dāri(ya)nu- by Gurney (1940: 49, note 3) has been entirely overlooked and forgotten (as has my passing mention in Melchert 2010: 211): “dariyanu-, which is also associated with muga- (see previous note), and which was supposed by Götze (Hatt. 100) to mean ‘invoke’ solely on the basis of KBo. III.16 rev. 10 ff., is shown by Taw. II 57 to imply a request. If it is the causative of tariya- ‘grow weary’ (on which see below, p. 99 ff.), perhaps the literal meaning is ‘importune’.” The fully restored Naram-Sin passage entirely affirms Gurney’s insight. I stress the repeated use of -ške- forms and the historical present: it is clear that Ishtar, wearied by Naram-Sin’s repeated pestering of her, tells him to go importune his own gods. Further confirmation comes from the coupling with mūgā(i)-, which with Laroche is not a verbum dicendi, but means to induce (with considerable effort) absent gods to return to their temples and resume their activities (see my full argumentation in Melchert 2010): one cannot “invoke” gods who are not present to hear a plea. And as seen by Gurney, in the passage in the “Tawagalawa Letter” the Hittite king is expressing his concern that the insolent and indefatigable Piyamaradu will importune the king of Ahhiyawa with a request that he be allowed to visit the Hittite king (see for the text Heinhold-Krahmer and Rieken 2020: 30–31 and compare the inconclusive commentary ibid. 193–4).

Final confirmation for Gurney’s analysis comes from the form of the stem in the Naram-Sin text, which as an Old Hittite composition might be expected to preserve an archaism, even in a NS copy. As per Oettinger (1979: 474–5), Kloekhorst (2008: 833–5), et al., the intransitive base verb tarai- is originally a “ḫi-verb in -i-” that only secondarily is inflected as tariya-ḫḫi and then tariya-mi (see also pret. 3rd sg. taraiš in KUB 36.83 i 20&23 and pres. 3rd sg. darāi ibid. i 24&27). This is now corroborated by the transitive dārinu-, which is built in regular fashion on the weak stem of the ḫi-verb, just like ḫuinu- ‘to move’ (tr.) < ḫuwai-ḫḫi ‘to move’ (intr.), pittinu- ‘to cause to run away’ < pittai-ḫḫi ‘to run’, and zīnu- ‘to cause to cross’ < zai-ḫḫi ‘to cross’. In sum, there can be no doubt that the verb ‘to importune’ is the same verb as dariyanu- ‘to make weary’ attested in a physical sense in KUB 17.29 ii 11–12 (see Tischler 1993: 174).

Bibliography

GURNEY, OLIVER R. 1940. Hittite Prayers of Mursili II (= AAA 27). Liverpool. HEINHOLD-KRAHMER, SUSANNE, and ELISABETH RIEKEN (eds.). 2020. Der „Tawagalawa-Brief‟.

Berlin/Boston. KLOEKHORST, ALWIN. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden/Boston. MELCHERT, H. CRAIG. 2010. Studi di Ittitologia in onore di Alfonso Archi, edited by Rita Francia and Giulia

Torri (= OrNS 79/2, 207–15). Roma. MOUTON, ALICE. 2007. Rêves hittites: Contribution à une histoire et une anthropologie du rêve en Anatolie

ancienne. Leiden/Boston. OETTINGER, NORBERT. 1979. Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nürnberg.


– 44 –

SOYSAL, OĞUZ. 2020. Boğazköy Kaynakları Işığında Akkad Kralları ile İlgili Edebî-Tarihî Metinler Hakkında Görüşler. Colloquium Anatolicum 19.101–120.

TISCHLER, JOHANN. 1993. Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar. Teil III. Lieferung 9. T, D/2. Innsbruck.

H. Craig MELCHERT <[email protected]> 103 Westview Drive Apt B, Carrboro NC 27510 (U.S.A.)

19) Elamite tap — In some Neo-Elamite and Achaemenid Elamite texts various lexemes occur that have tap as final element. These are hazatap, kigaltap, mulatap and pirtap, to which also the proper name Šimut-tap may be added. One time, in tapmikilkira, tap seems to be the initial element. This short study will analyse these six expressions and try to give an adequate translation for the element tap.

1. Haza-tap (ha-za-tap): this lexeme is regularly attested in the Achaemenid Fortification Texts (PF 1956:38, 1957:41, 1958:20, 1959:19, 1960:34; PFNN 535:29, 577:23, 728:38, 762:38, 2040:45, 2290:43, 2337:47, 2344:32, 2370:43, 2487:39) and is beyond any doubt a professional designation. It always appears in the formula PN₁ hazatap PN₂ anmantaš GUD tupema nutika “It (i.e. grain) was set aside for cattle in the possession of PN₁ the hazatap and PN₂ the anmantaš”, which suggests that the lexeme has something to do with grain for cattle (Hallock 1969, 696). Koch (1980, 131 n. 138) sees in the hazatap a person who provided cattle as draught animals for the cultivation of the land and compares him with the NP expression gāwband, who provided a tenant with teams and sometimes also seed. Hinz & Koch (1987, 653) propose a literal translation “cattle – keeper” and equate this word with Old Iranian *upavatguš “cattle assistant” (Tavernier 2007, 433 no. 4.4.7.114). The general meaning would then be “landlord, lessor”. Despite the attractivity of this idea, the exact meaning of the Elamite word hazatap is not certain.

Anmantaš itself (El. an-man-taš and an-nu-man-da), also a professional designation, may render *anvanta-. In some texts, a word an-mi-ud-da/an-mi-ut-taš is written instead of an-man-taš. This could be a rendering of Old Ir. *anvita-. Hinz & Koch (1987, 59 and 60) propose “stable master, equerry” for both words, whereas Koch (apud Hinz & Koch 1987, 59 and 60) prefers “tenant”. Nevertheless, there is no plausible Iranian etymology for *anvan- “stable” (El. an-nu-man) and *anvanta- “stablemaster” (Tavernier 2007, 503-504 no. 5.3.4.5 and5.3.4.7), although both words (anmantaš and anmitta) must belong to the same semantic field.

2. KI.GAL-tap (KI.GAL-tap): this is a Sumerian-Elamite compound. Hinz & Koch (1987, 464) translate Sum. KI.GAL by “cult platform, cult pedestal” (cf. also Attinger 2021, 608). In Hittite texts KI.GAL may also mean “throne; residence” and even “ruler’s dignity, rulership” (Rüster & Neu 1989, 247 and 330; Tischler 2008, 265; Vanséveren 2016, 515). This of course opens a wide range of possible meanings.

The expression is attested once, in the Neo-Elamite administrative text MDP 9 161:6, where a certain Huban-tuniš is called a KI.GAL-tap (behu-ban-du-nu-iš KI.GAL-tap-na “from Huban-tuniš, the kigaltap”). Scheil (1907, 143) reads ki.gal tab-na, while Jusifov (1963, 224) presents his reader the very unlikely reading behu-ban-du-nu-iš <gal ki>-man-na. He does not translate the text.

3. Mula-tap (mu-la-tap and mu-la-tab-be): this lexeme occurs three times in the Persepolis Fortification Texts and clearly denotes an occupational designation. In PF 864:18 one mulatap (halmu-la-tap) receives 3 BAR of grain. In PF 865:17 three mulatap (halmu-la-tab-be) each receive 3 BAR of grain. Finally, in PF 866:13, the number of mulatap (halmu-la-tap!) is broken, but it must be more than one, since the text says that each mulatap receives 3 BAR of grain. This implies, contrary to what Hallock (1969, 734) and Hinz & Koch (1987, 951) believe, that the spellings mu-la-tap and mu-la-tab-be may both indicate the plural form, in other words, that the singular and plural forms of this lexeme are identical.

In these three texts the mulatap appear always before “boys” (puhu) in the ration list. Two times they follow makers of furniture, one time wood-carriers.

Whereas Hallock (1969, 734) does not venture a translation, Hinz (1971, 266; also Hinz & Koch 1987, 951) proposes for mula-tap a meaning “domestic servant, valet”, but he admits (Hinz 1971,


– 45 –

266 n. 27) that this translation is a pure guess (“bloß geraten”) and that the expression may very well indicate a gardener.

4. Pir-tap(?): spelled pi(?)-ir-tap: attested one time in a Fortification Text (PFNN 574:13). Its reading is uncertain, but Hinz & Koch (1987, 197) propose nevertheless a meaning “reward”, based on the context. As for now, however, this lexeme remains unclear.

5. Šimut-tap: anthroponym attested in various Achaemenid Persepolis Fortification Texts (Hinz & Koch 1987, 1166) and written halši-mu-da-ip (PF 2082:14) and hal.dšimut-da-ap (Fort. 5901:3 [Arfaee 2008, 127-128]; PF 283:8, 325:3, 576:3-4, 577:4-5, 590:7-8, 1033:3, 1132:3; PFNN 736:3-4, 2315:3). The name could mean “Simut is caring”, but that depends of course on the meaning of tap.

6. Tap-mikilkir: occupational designation, only attested once, in PF 865:12 (haltap-mi-ki-ul-ki-ra). Despite Hinz’s proposals “Edelmetall-Schmelzer(?)” and “Edelmetall-Schätzer(?)” (Hinz 1971, 267 and n.29), the real meaning of this lexeme remains obscure (Hinz & Koch 1987, 286). It is therefore impossible to confirm with certainty the existence of a compound consisting of tap- and mikilkir. In addition, the three-syllabic element mikilkir is also hard to explain. Hinz & Koch (1987, 286) believe that Elamite tap does mean “carer (Pfleger, Wart)”, but at the

same time they also propose a meaning “servant”. As an argument in favour of the latter idea, they mention a comparison with Old Elamite ta-a-ab that may lead to a meaning “servant”, but no further explanation is presented. Hinz & Koch read a sequence ta-a-ab twice (lines 3 and 5) in an Elamite incantation from the temple of Ninazu in Enegi (YOS 11 18 and its duplicate OECT 11 5; van Dijk 1975, 53 and 79; Hinz & Koch 1987, 1322-1323), but the copy and corresponding transliteration (van Dijk 1982, 100; Id. 1985, 25 and Pl. XXI) clearly show a reading ša-a-ab, which makes ta-a-ab a ghost reading. As a result of this, a connection with ta-a-ab is useless as help in establishing the meaning of tap. More recently, Krebernik has shown that the correct readings is not even ša-a-ab, but -ša a-ap. This reading is clear from OECT 11 5:5 which has ki-ri-ri-ša a-ap (Krebernik 2018, 31).

It is the lexeme hazatap, concerning which the context gives the most information as to the meaning. It could be that haza- is another Elamite word for “cattle”, although absolute certainty does not exist. If this is true, it would be a synonym for aš. As the cattle was in possession of the hazatap, tap may have a sense of “someone who takes care of”.

In conclusion, the precise meaning of tap might be “carer; keeper”, but this is only based on contextual arguments, not on etymological ones. As a consequence of this, it is wise to accept that we do not know yet what tap stands for. Only new evidence may be of any help in this discussion.

Bibliography

ARFAEE, M. 2008, Persepolis Fortification Tablets. Fort. And Teh. Texts (Ancient Iranian Studies Series 5), Tehran.

ATTINGER, P. 2021, Glossaire sumérien-français, principalement des textes littéraires paléobabyloniens, Wiesbaden.

HALLOCK, R.T. 1969, Persepolis Fortification Tablets (OIP 92), Chicago. HINZ, W. 1971, “Achämenidische Hofverwaltung”, ZA 61, 260–311. HINZ, W. & KOCH, H. 1987, Elamisches Wörterbuch (AMI. Erg. 17), Berlin. JUSIFOV, Ju.B. 1963, “Эламские хозяйственные документы из Суз”, VDI 85/3, 200-261. KOCH, H. 1980, “Steuern in der achämenidischen Persis?”, ZA 70, 105-137. KREBERNIK, M. 2018, “Eine neue elamische Beschwörung aus der Hilprecht-Sammlung (HS 2338)”, Elamica 8,

13-48. RÜSTER, C. & NEU, E. 1989, Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon. Inventar und Interpretation der Keilschriftzeichen

aus den Boǧazköy-Texten (StBoT. Beih. 2), Wiesbaden. SCHEIL, V. 1907, Texte élamites-anzanites. Troisième série (MDP 9), Paris. TAVERNIER, J. 2007, Iranica in the Achaemenid period (ca. 550-330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian proper

names and loanwords, attested in non-Iranian texts, OLA 158, Leuven. TISCHLER, J. 2008, Hethitisches Handwörterbuch. Mit dem Wortschatz der Nachbarsprachen (IBS 128), 2nd ed.,

Innsbruck. VAN DIJK, J. 1975, “Incantations accompagnant la naissance de l’homme”, Orientalia 44, 52-79.


– 46 –

VAN DIJK, J. 1982, “Fremdsprachliche Beschwörungstexte in der südmesopotamischen literarischen Überlieferung”, H. Kühne, H.-J. Nissen & J. Renger (eds.), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (BBVO 1), Berlin, 97-110.

VAN DIJK, J. 1985, Early Mesopotamian Incantations and Rituals (YOS 11), New Haven. VANSÉVEREN, S. 2016, Vocabulaire hittite, y compris louvite, palaïte, akkadien et sumérien (Lettres

Orientales et Classiques 20), Leuven. Traduction du dictionnaire de Tischler.

Jan TAVERNIER <[email protected]> Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve (BELGIUM)

20) BM 99128 (A.0.100.7) - Tukulti-Ninurta II or Aššur-reš-iši? — The fragment of a glazed tile BM 99128 bears a fragmentary inscription reading:

1ʹ …lúSANGA Aš-š]ur A Aš-šur-KAL SANGA Aš-šur-ma e-nu-ma na-mé-[ru… 2ʹ …ti-ib]-ki lu ul-li 35 ti-ib-ki a-na mah-ru-t[e

1ʹ …vice-regent of Ašš]ur, (grand)son of Assur-dan. When the towers [… 2ʹ …cour]ses (and thus) did I raise it 35 courses higher than before […

Grayson (1991: 180, A.0.100.7) ascribed this inscription to Tukulti-Ninurta II, who was indeed a grandson of Assur-dan, as implied by the -ma in l.1ʹ, specifically Assur-dan II. Although Tukulti-Ninurta II did indeed restore a towered building (Grayson 1991: 184 A.0.100.14), the phrase of which BM 99128.2ʹ preserves a part, describing the raising of a wall by 35 courses, is very distinctive. It calls to mind the claims of Aššur-reš-iši of rebuilding the towers of the great gate of the temple of Ishtar in Nineveh, removing 15 courses of brick and rebuilding with 50 courses, thus making it 35 courses of brick higher than before (Grayson 1987: 311, A.0.86.1 line 11; 313 A.0.86.2 line 7). The same word and spelling for towers na-mé-ru is used. As Aššur-reš-iši was also a grandson of an Assur-dan, in this case Assur-dan I, we would suggest that BM 99128 may be attributed to Aššur-reš-iši. The proposal is supported by the palaeography, the four small verticals in the ŠUR signs in BM 99128 and the four horizontals in the KI signs are both typical of Middle Assyrian forms (I am grateful to Jaume Llop for this observation).

Reference

GRAYSON, A.K. 1987 Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC) (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods, volume 1). Toronto.

GRAYSON, A.K. 1991 Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859 BC). Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods Volume 2). Toronto.

John MACGINNIS <[email protected]> British Museum (ENGLAND)

21) A Fish? A Bird? – A New Interpretation of the Drawing on VAT 13141 — The Kassite exercise tablet VAT 13141 (Bab. 36607), recently published by Bartelmus (2016: 343f.), contains an extract of nine extispicy omens regarding the stomach (kukkudru) of a sacrificial sheep, followed by a numerical repetition of the number 10 (U) on the obverse and a peculiar drawing (Fig. 1) on the reverse. Pedersén (2005: 89) suggested that this image may resemble a bird, a view which was later cautiously followed by van Soldt (2011: 204) and Bartelmus (2016: 125), who added the alternative possibility of a fish.

However, a more precise interpretation of the Akkadian term kukkudru is that of it being the fourth stomach of a sheep, i.e., the Abomasum (Moran 1967: 180; Starr 1983: 92; Cohen 2018: 137). Having the Abomasum (Fig. 2) in mind, we can identify the beginning of the Duodenum (a), the Abomasum itself (b) and part of the Psalterium (c) in the abstract drawing on VAT 13141. Hence, I would argue that there is a yet more logical relation between the text on the obverse and the drawing on the reverse; i.e., both are concerned with the kukkudru, the Abomasum of a sheep.


– 47 –

Fig. 1. Drawing on the reverse Fig. 2: Drawing of a ruminant’s of VAT 13141 in Bartelmus 2016: 344 Abomasum in Vaughn 1904: 1643

References

BARTELMUS, A. 2016. Fragmente einer großen Sprache. Sumerisch im Kontext der Schreiberausbildung des kassitenzeitlichen Babylonien. UAVA 12. Boston/Berlin.

COHEN, Y. 2018. An Old Babylonian List of Sheep Body Parts (BM 29663), in: S.V. PANAYOTOV/L. VACÍN (eds.), Mesopotamian Magic and Medicine. Studies in Honor of Markham J. Geller. AMD 14, 131–148. Leiden/Boston.

MORAN, W.L. 1967. Some Akkadian Names of the Stomachs of Ruminants, JCS 21: 178–182. PEDERSÉN, O. 2005. Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon. Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys

1899–1917. ADOG 25. Berlin. VAN SOLDT, W.H. 2011. The Role of Babylon in Western Peripheral Education, in: E. Cancik-Kirschbaum/M.

VAN ESS/J. MARZAHN (eds.), Babylon. Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident. Topoi. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 1, 197–211. Berlin/Boston.

STARR, I. 1983. The Rituals of the Diviner. BiMes 12. Malibu. VAUGHN, I. 1904. Strangeways’ Veterinary Anatomy. Toronto.

Elyze ZOMER <[email protected]> Philipps-Universität Marburg (GERMANY)

22) RI-ma-ŠU/RI-ma-a-MU in Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi I, line 19 — The term RI-ma-ŠU/RI-ma-a-MU in Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi I, line 19 poses obstacles to the interpretation of the entire line. This term is preserved on a tablet from Nimrud (ND 5485+5497/20 = CTN IV, no. 201; ND 5485 = IM 67628 was first published in WISEMAN 1980), the Sippar duplicate (Si 1.D.4 = GEORGE/AL-RAWI 1998), and BM 36320 that was published by Fincke (2021) in a recent issue of NABU, Fincke joined BM 36320 to BM 37695 (=OSHIMA 2014 Pl. III; Lambert CT no. 147).

For the reader’s convenience, I first present here a Partitur of lines 19–20:

19 BM 36320+37695 obv 8ʹ i-du-ud-ma ri-⸢ma⸣-a-MU ú-gan-na BM 66345 14ʹ …-m]a ri-m[a-šu… Si 1.D.4 obv 19 id-du-u[d]-ma ri-ma-a-MU ú-gan-na ND 5485+5497/20 19 id-du-ud-ma ri-ma-šu ú-gan-ni

20 BM 36320+37695 obv 9ʹ [k]i-i ÁB AMAR it-t[a]-na-as-ḫar ár-ki-šú BM 66345 15ʹ …-r]i i[t-… Si 1.D.4 obv 20 [k]i-i a-r[a]-a[ḫ] bu-ri it-ta-na-as-ḫa-ru EGIR-ia ND 5485+5497/20 20 ù ki-i a-ra-aḫ bu-ú-ri it-ta-na-as-ḫa-ra EGIR-šú

There are two key issues with RI-ma-ŠU/RI-ma-a-MU. The first issue is the disagreement of the last signs: ŠU and MU. The second matter we need to address is the long ā preceding it.

In terms of the modern scholarship, the Nimrud tablet was the first text to witness line 19 (WISEMAN 1980). Wiseman read it ri-ma-š[a] and translated “the one he loves.” However, judging from its photograph on CTN IV, pl. 153, the last sign is actually -ŠU. Because the other possessive pronouns for the third person singular in the first forty lines of Tablet I refer to Marduk, Wiseman’s interpretation of -šu as the possessive


– 48 –

pronominal suffix for the third person masculine singular seemed justified. However, when a new exemplar of Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi Tablet I from Sippar (=Si 1.D.4) was published in GEORGE/AL-RAWI 1998, it came as a surprise to find RI-ma-a-MU in its line 19 instead of RI-ma-ŠU on CTN IV, no. 201. Although Ludlul is a first person narrative, in the hymnic introductory section (i.e., I 1–40), there is no reference to the narrator himself: we did not expect the possessive pronominal suffix for the first person singular, i.e., -ya, in this line 19. It seems that the scribe of the Sippar MS indeed meant to read -MU -ia₅, as he wrote EGIR-ia instead of EGIR-šú, as in the Nimrud MS, in the following line that forms a couplet with line 19.

In NABU, Fincke (2021) published yet another Babylonian duplicate of Tablet I, BM 36320+BM 37695. Very intriguingly, in the newly identified BM 36320 (FINCKE 2021), the word in question again reads RI-⸢ma⸣-a-MU (line 8ʹ) while its line 9ʹ has ár-ki-šú. The new duplicate confirms that RI-ma-a-MU is actually correct, while EGIR-ia of George/Al-Rawi’s Sippar MS is perhaps a scribal error meant to be EGIR-šú. However, it is not clear how RI-ma-a-MU can be reconciled with RI-ma-ŠU of the Nimrud MS.

Another issue of RI-ma-a-MU/RI-ma-ŠU in Ludlul I 19 is the long ā that is clearly indicated by the plene writing in Fincke’s new duplicate as well as George/Al-Rawi’s Sippar MS. All the scholars agree that RI-ma(-a) is a noun, either rīmu, “wild ox,” (e.g. FOSTER 1981; OSHIMA 2014, 79; PICCIN/WORTHINGTON 2015, 115) or rēmu, “love,” (e.g. WISEMAN 1980, 105; VON SODEN 1990, 115; GEORGE/AL-RAWI 1998, 195; FOSTER 2005, 395; and ANNUS/LENZI 2010, 31). Because line 20 speaks of a cow and a calf, it is very likely that rīmu, “bull, wild ox,” is meant here. Nonetheless, these interpretations do not explain the existence of the long -ā before the alleged possessive pronominal suffixes, as detailed in GEORGE/AL-RAWI 1998, 198.

In order to solve these enigmas, PICCIN/WORTHINGTON 2015, 115 suggest a rather creative reading of ri-ma-nišxsic. for rīmāniš and translate “like a wild bull.” They argue that, because the sign MU is also a Sumerogram for nīšu, “life,” the phonetic value niš can be expected from it. Their argument is actually based on FOSTER 1981 suggesting an emendation of -šu of the Nimrud MS and read -níš (=GIŠ). I find their suggestions based on an emendation and a thus far unattested sound value rather less tenable.

Here I suggest a simpler interpretation and read MU of line 19 as -šùm or -šu₁₀, and read the second half of line 19 rīmāšu(m) ugannâ, thus agreeing with the Nimrud MS. Unlike the previous suggestions, however, I take -šu not as the possessive pronominal suffix but -(V)šu(m), i.e. the terminative, similar to -iš. The entire line should then be translated: “When Marduk becomes pointed (becomes angry?), he charges at a wild bull.” Other examples of -(V)šu(m) in Ludlul Tablet I are:

Line 43, šá-da-a-šú i-li, “the personal god climbed to the mountain (i.e. disappeared)” Line 73 ik-nu-uš qaq-qar-šun, “(my head) bent down to the ground.”

The same -āšu(m) is also observed in the Dialogue of the Tamarisk and the Palm, lines 2 and 13 (LAMBERT 1960, 156): i-sa-qa-ra-am gi-ši-ma-ra-šu/gi-ši-ma-ra-a-šu “He (the tamarisk) says to the Palm.” For -šu(m),see MAYER 1995, 185; GRONEBERG 1978/1979, 29.

Having said so, however, it is also possible that the author intended a pun based on polysemy of the Akkadian terms and polyvalency of the cuneiform signs. We can read the last two words rēmāšu ukannâ, and translates, “he attends to the compassion respectfully,” referring to Marduk’s mercifulness. For the puns based on polysemy and polyvalency in Ludlul I 1–40, see NOEGEL 2016.

References

ANNUS, A. and A. LENZI (2021): Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer, (SAACT 7), Helsinki.

FINCKE, J.C. (2021): BM 36320 + BM 37695: ludlul bēl nēmeqi tablet I, NABU 2021/89, 208–12. FOSTER, B.R. (1981): tuktukku “shiver, quake,” RA 75, 189. — 2005: Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd Edition, Bethesda. GEORGE, A.R. and F.N.H. AL-RAWI (1998): Tablets from the Sippar Library: VII. Three Wisdom Texts, Iraq 60,

187–206. GEORGE, A.R. and J. TANIGUSCHI (2019), Cuneiform Texts from the Folios of W. G. Lambert, Part One, University

Park. GRONEBERG, B.R.M. (1978/1979): Terminativ- und Lokativadverbialis in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten,

AfO 26, 15–29. LAMBERT, W.G. (1960): Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford.


– 49 –

MAYER, W.R. (1995): Zum Terminativ-Adverbialis im Akkadischen: Die Modaladverbien auf -iš, Orientalia 64, 161–86.

NOEGEL, S.B (2016): Suffering Amgibuity in Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi: On Erudition, Ideology, and Theology in Tablet I, BiOr 73, 613–36.

OSHIMA, T. (2014): Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers: Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi and the Babylonian Theodicy, (ORA 14), Tübingen.

PICCIN, M. and M. WORTHINGTON (2015): Schizophrenia and the Problem of Suffering in the Ludlul Hymn to Marduk, RA 109, 113–24.

VON SODEN, W. (1990): Weisheitstexte in akkadischer Sprache, in TUAT III, Weisheitstexte, Mythen und Epen: Weisheitstexte I, Gütersloh, 110–88.

WISEMAN, D.J. (1980): A New Text of the Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer, AnSt 30, 101–107. WISEMAN, D.J. and J.A. BLACK (1996): Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû, (CTN 4), Oxford.

T. M. OSHIMA <[email protected]> Altorientalisches Institut – Universität Leipzig (GERMANY)/

The Department of Ancient Studies – Stellenbosch University (SOUTH AFRICA)

23) Das Klagen der Eule in der akkadischen und ägyptischen Sprache — In diesem Beitrag spielt die akkadisch-ägyptische Interpretation der Eulenrufe als Klagelaute eine besondere Rolle. Die Vorstellung liegt in beiden Sprachen voll entwickelt vor.

Die ersten Zeilen nehmen auf das akkadische Material Bezug. Im dortigen Fall können für das Phänomen zwei Wörter in Erwägung gezogen werden. Das erste Interesse verspricht das Wort „lallaru“1), das mit der Bedeutung „Klagender, i. e. Art Eule“ Einzug in die Lexika gehalten hat. Die klagenden Laute tragen hier zur Bildung eines Eulennamens bei. Die zweite Relevanz besitzt das Wort „lalāru“2), das mit der Bedeutung „Eule, i. e. Klagepriester“ in die Lexika gewandert ist. Die Verbindung zwischen den Eulen-rufen und Klagelauten wird also auch hier hergestellt. Im Ergebnis hat sie die Schaffung einer ganz konkreten Klagepriesterbezeichnung inspiriert, worauf gleich im Anschluss noch einmal zurückgekommen wird. Die etymologische Grundlage von „lallaru“ und „lalāru“ bietet sich mit der Wurzel „lallarātu“3) „Wehklagen o. ä“ an. Die spezielle Nähe der Eulenrufe zu Klagelauten spiegelt sich indessen auch in der ägyptischen Sprache wider.

Die Aufmerksamkeit richtet sich dabei auf die Etymologie des ägyptischen Wortes „imw“4), das sich als Eulenbezeichnung durchgesetzt hat. Der Name der „imw“-Eule wird durch die meisten Interpreten von der Wurzel „im“ „klagen“ abgeleitet. Der Ansatz wird in dieser Form beispielsweise von Edel5), Osing6) und Westendorf7) vertreten. Das tertium comparationis haben wohl die typischen dumpf klingenden Eulenrufe gebildet. Die ägyptische Sprache kennt darüber hinaus ein Wort „imw“8) „Klagepriester“, für das durchaus ein Zusammenhang mit der „imw“-Eule überlegt werden kann. Die Idee gewinnt durch die obigen Bemerkungen zu „lalāru“ „Eule=Klagepriester“ an Plausibilität. Die Benennung von Klageleuten nach Vo-gelnamen ist der ägyptischen Sprache immerhin nicht fremd, sondern auch in genügend anderen Fällen zu belegen9). Ob es daneben auch eine klagende „im“-Ente gegeben hat10), müsste noch besser geprüft werden.

Die Parallele dürfte damit für jedermann erkennbar sein. In der ägyptischen und akkadischen Sprache haben Eulenlaute die gleiche traurige Assoziation geweckt. Die direkte oder indirekte Ab-hängigkeit scheidet gleichwohl als Ursache so gut wie sicher aus. Die Erklärung mit dem gleichen kulturellen Hintergrund führt wesentlich eher ans Ziel, die auch Röllig11) in ähnlichem Kontext bemüht hat. Der Prozess ist demnach unter denselben Startbedingungen in dieselbe Richtung verlaufen.

Anmerkungen

1. CAD, L, 48b. 2. AH, 530. 3. AH, 530; CAD, L, 47. 4. H. S. SMITH, Some Coptic Etymologies, JEA 61 (1975), 199 n. 6; W. SCHENKEL, Zur Rekonstruktion der

deverbalen Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen, GOF IV. Reihe, Ägypten Band 13 (Wiesbaden, 1983), 69.

5. E. EDEL, Zu den Inschriften auf den Jahreszeitenreliefs der „Weltkammer“ aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des Niuserre, NAWG, 1. Philologisch-Historische Klasse II/4 (Göttingen, 1963), 94/99.


– 50 –

6. J. OSING, Die Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen, Textband, SDAIK 3a (Mainz, 1976), 201. 7. W. WESTENDORF, LÄ VI, Stele-Zypresse (Wiesbaden, 1986), 588. 8. Chr. LEITZ, Die Gaumonographien in Edfu und ihre Papyusvarianten, Ein überregionaler Kanon kultischen

Wissens im spätzeitlichen Ägypten, Zeichnungen von Mareike Wagner, Soubassementstudien III, Teil 1: Text, SSR 9 (Wiesbaden, 2014), 350/351.

9. St. BOJOWALD, Eine ägyptisch-akkadische Parallele in Bezug auf die Verbindung zwischen Klagefrau-bezeichnungen und Vogelnamen, BN 171 (2016), 143-147.

10. zuletzt E. LANGE-ATHINODOROU, Sedfestritual und Königtum, Die Reliefdekoration am Torbau Osorkons II. im Tempel der Bastet von Bubastis, ÄgAb 75 (Wiesbaden, 2019), 385-386.

11. W. RÖLLIG, Die altorientalischen Literaturen, Einleitung. Der Alte Orient, Raum und Geschichte, in: W. RÖLLIG, Altorientalische Literaturen, Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft Band 1 (Wiesbaden, 1978), 21-22.

Stefan BOJOWALD <[email protected]>

24) Zu einer akkadisch-ägyptischen Parallele bei der übertragenen Verwendung von Verben für „gehen“ im Sinne „Vögel fliegen— Der folgende Beitrag hebt eine akkadisch-ägyptische Parallele bei der Übertragung von Verben für „gehen“ auf Vögel hervor. Das Thema wurde offenbar noch nicht aus diesem besonderen Blickwinkel betrachtet.

Die akkadische Sprache bildet den Auftakt der Untersuchung, wo sich die Übertragung eindeutig nachweisen lässt. Die Hauptposition nimmt hierbei das Verb „alāku“1) ein, dessen Bedeutung in allen möglichen Schattierungen „gehen“ gelautet hat. Der entscheidende Faktor besteht nun darin, dass es auch für Vögel gebraucht werden konnte.

Der repräsentative Charakter kommt hierbei einer Stelle aus dem Gilgamesch-Epos zu. Das Literaturwerk wurde bekanntlich neben dem Zweistromland auch an mehreren peripher gelegenen Gra-bungsstätten geborgen, die sich auf der Karte des Vorderen Orients von Meggido im Süden über Ugarit und Emar in der Mitte bis nach Hattuscha2) im Norden verteilen. In den anschließend zitierten Zeilen wird über die ersten dramatischen Minuten nach dem Abklingen der Sinnflut berichtet. Der Plan zur Vernichtung des Menschengeschlechts durch göttliche Strafgerichte wurde – damit wird ebenfalls nichts Neues gesagt – in vielen Kulturen ersonnen. Im aktuellen Kontext ist die Aussage

„7-ú u₄-mu ina ka-šá-a-di, ú-še-ṣi-ma summata(tu)mušen ú-maš-šar, il-lik summatu(tu)mušen i-pi-ra-am-m[a], man-za-zu ul i-pa-áš-šim-ma is-saḫ-r[a], ú-še-ṣi-ma sinūnta(sim)mušen ú-maš-š[a]r, il-lik sinūntu(sim)mušen i-pi-ra-a[m-ma], man-za-zu ul i-pa-áš-[ši]m-ma is-saḫ-ra, ú-še-ṣi-ma a-ri-ba ú-maš-šir, il-lik a-ri-bi-maqa-ru-ra šá mê(a)meš i-mur-ma, ik-kal i-šá-aḫ-ḫi i-tar-ri ul is-saḫ-ra“3)

zu finden, die von George durch:

„When the seventh day arrived, I brought out a dove, setting it free: off went the dove… No perch was available for it and it came back to [me.] I brought out a swallow, setting it free: off went the swallow… No perch was available for it and it came back to me. I brought out a raven, setting it free: off went the raven and it saw the waters receding. It was eating, bobbing up and down, it did not come back to me“

wiedergegeben wird. Die dort gewählte wörtliche Bedeutung „gehen“ des Verbs „alāku“ ist gewiss nicht falsch, mutet jedoch bei Vögeln wie Taube, Schwalbe oder Rabe nicht besonders plastisch an. In konsequenter Weise ziehen denn auch Maul4), Röllig5) und Schmökel6) die Übersetzung „fliegen“ vor. Die Entscheidung wird durch den Zusammenhang durchaus nahe gelegt. Der Sinn wird so jedenfalls wesentlich zielsicherer getroffen. Der gewisse Spielraum bei der Übersetzung des Verbs wird auch durch die Wiedergabe „sich fortmachen“ bei Schott7) deutlich, wo die Abstraktion allerdings noch nicht die letzte Stufe erreicht hat. Der gleiche Umwandlungsprozess lässt sich in der ägyptischen Sprache nachweisen.

Die Aufgabe des akkadischen „alāku“ fällt dort an das Verb „šm“8) „gehen“, das ebenfalls zu den Allroundwörtern gehört. Die betreffende Assoziation des Gehens als Fliegen taucht an einem knappen Duzend von Stellen auf, die im Folgenden aufgezählt werden

Das erste Beispiel wird durch die Stelle

„m mi stm pr-aʿ3 p3i {nb} ʿ3 p3 sḏi e-3r-ḥr (?) t3 bni (n) t-t wne-e-3r= ś mś ḥr tm p3 im (n) t-t wne-e-3r=ś ʾ3j šm (3) bnr (3) wḫe ḫr3 ḥ n3j=ś ẖrd =ś ḏd p3 im ḥrḥ (3) n3i ẖrd…“9)


– 51 –

repräsentiert, für die sich zunächst die Übersetzung

„Auf, möge der Pharao, mein großer {Herr}, die Geschichte von der Schwalbe hören. Als sie Junge bekommen hatte am Ufer des Meeres, als sie kam und hinausging, um Futter zu suchen für ihre Jungen, da sagte sie zu dem Meer: „Pass auf meine Jungen auf…“

anbietet. Der Text bildet den Teil eines Briefes des arabischen Fürsten an den ägyptischen König, in dem u. a. die Fabel vom Meer und der Schwalbe enthalten ist. Die Übersetzung „hinausgehen“ von Spiegelberg bleibt seltsam blass, die Alternative „fliegen“ würde zumindest sehr viel lebendiger wirken. In der jüngsten Übersetzung durch Quack10) ist denn auch die überzeugendere Variante „fortfliegen“ zu finden.

Der gleiche Aspekt tritt an der Stelle „šm n=f mnw r M…“11) hervor, für welche die Erstübersetzung „ …die Taube ging nach Unterägypten (?)“ die beste Lösung ist. Die Verbindung „n=f“ ist wohl als dativus ethicus zu bestimmen. Die gleiche Erklärung trifft auf die folgenden Beispiele zu, die z. T. aus demselben Text genommen sind. Die grammatikalische Erscheinung kommt gerade bei Verben der Bewegung auch in anderen Sprachen mehrfach vor. Die genaue inhaltliche Interpretation der Stelle wird zwar durch den zerstörten Kontext verhindert, die wichtigsten Schlüsselwörter sind aber zum Glück erhalten geblieben. In Analogie zur zuvor genannten Stelle mit der Schwalbe bliebe auch hier die Bedeutung „fortfliegen“ zu überlegen.

Die gleiche Vorstellung zeigt sich in der Passage „šm n=f bnw r Bbl“13), für welche die Erst-übersetzung „der Benu-Vogel ging nach Babylon“ akzeptabel erscheint. Die Auswertung wird wie im weiteren Verlauf generell gegen Ende nachgeliefert.

Die Passage „šm n=f nry r…“14) spiegelt wohl denselben Sachverhalt wider, für welche die Erstübersetzung „der Geier ging nach…“ plausibel ist. Der Geier bildet auch das Subjekt in der Passage „n3.w nrii.<w>t i.ir šm m-ś3 ẖl3.t [n] n3ii=w ẖrṱ.w“15), für welche die Erstübersetzung „Diese Geierweibchen, die Nahrung holen gingen [für] ihre Jungen.“ brauchbar erscheint. Die Parallele zur Schwalbenmutter drängt sich fast von selbst auf.

Die Passage „šm n=f …nini…“16) ist im gleichen Licht zu betrachten, für welche die Erstübersetzung „der… nini-Vogel ging nach Oberägypten (?)“ angemessen wirkt.

Die Stelle „šm n=f dri dry“17) erfordert die gleiche Interpretation, für welche die Erstübersetzung „die Weihe ging nach Dor“ geboten scheint. In der ornithologischen Bestimmung des „ḏr.t“-Vogels, dessen demotischer Nachfolger hier vorliegt, hat sich der Schwarzmilan/die Gabelweihe durchsetzen können. Der „dri“-Vogel tritt hier offenbar in einem Wortspiel mit der levantinischen Stadt „dri“ „Dor“ auf, so dass dasselbe Stilmittel mutatis mutandis auch bei den hier zitierten verwandten Stellen zu erschließen ist.

Die gleiche Vorstellung beherrscht die Passage „[iwt/pri.t m] qbḥ.w šm.t r rśi gnw“18), die sich durch „[(Heraus]kommen aus dem] kühlen Deltagewässer (und) gehen nach dem Süden seitens des gnw-Vogels“ stringent wiedergeben lässt. Das Verb „šm“ „gehen“ wird bereits von Edel als Synonym für „fliegen“ aufgefasst. Der ägyptische „gnw“-Vogel wird in der modernen Forschung mehrheitlich mit dem Pirol in eins gesetzt19) der als Zugvogel in Zentral- oder Westafrika überwintert und auf seiner Flugroute dorthin auch Ägypten überquert. Der Konkurrenzvorschlag „Bienenfresser“ von Griffith20) hat sich dagegen nicht behaupten können. Das alljährlich wiederkehrende Detail im Lebensrhythmus des Pirols wird hier demnach originalgetreu geschildert. Die Stelle hebt sich von den übrigen Beispielen insofern ab, als sie zeigt, dass die betreffende Assoziation bereits im Alten Reich dokumentiert ist. Der Rest der Beispiele kann in die Spät- und Griechisch-Römische Zeit datiert werden.

In all diesen Fällen steht zunächst das Verb „šm“ „gehen“ da, dessen wörtliche Wiedergabe sicher nicht ganz verkehrt wäre. In Verbindung mit Vögeln lässt sich aber durch die Bedeutung „fliegen“ wesentlich weiter kommen, wodurch die Aussagen sehr viel größere Prägnanz erführen. Der Weg in diese Richtung wurde bereits von Edel in dem von ihm selbst behandelten Beispiel beschritten. Die Erklärung mit bodenlebenden Vögeln würde den ganzen Zusammenhang jedenfalls komplett ad absurdum zu führen.

Die hier untersuchte Parallele zeichnet sich klar und deutlich ab. Die Annahme einer direkten Abhängigkeit oder Beeinflussung der beiden Sprachen würde gleichwohl den völlig falschen Eindruck erwecken. Der bildhafte Gedanke wurde vielmehr – und darauf ist größter Wert zu legen – in beiden Spra-chen unabhängig voneinander entwickelt. Die Keimzelle des Vorgangs wurde dabei von den jeweiligen


– 52 –

Standardverben für „gehen“ gebildet. In Anbetracht dieses Umstandes sollte der hiesige Ansatz problemlos möglich sein.

Anmerkungen 1. CAD A/I, 300-328; AH, 31-34. 2. zu der hethitischen Fassung des Gilgamesch vgl. G. Beckman, The Hittite Gilgamesh, in: B. R. Foster (ed.),

The Epic of Gilgamesh. A New Translation, Analogues, Criticisme (New York-London, 2001) 157-165; A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 2 vol. (Oxford, 2003) 24/306-347; J. Klinger, Die hethitische Rezeption mesopotamischer Literatur und die Überlieferung des Gilgameš-Epos in Hattuša, Eothen 13 (2005) 103-123.

3. A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh-Epic, Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, Volume I (Oxford, 2003) 712.

4. St. M. Maul, Neue Textvertreter der elften Tafel des Gilgamesch-Epos, MDOG 133 (Berlin, 2001) 38; St. M. Maul, Das Gilgamesch-Epos (München, 2005) 145.

5. W. Röllig, Das Gilgamesch-Epos (Stuttgart, 2009) 112. 6. H. Schmökel, Das Gilgamesch Epos, Eingeführt, rhythmisch übertragen und mit Anmerkungen versehen, 5.,

durchgesehene Auflage (Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln-Mainz, 1980) 102/103. 7. A. Schott, in: W. von Soden (Hrsg.), Das Gilgamesch-Epos, Übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen von

Albert Schott (Ditzingen, 1997) 99. 8. R. Hannig, Ägyptisches Wörterbuch I, Altes Reich und erste Zwischenzeit (Mainz, 2003) 1298-1299; R.

Hannig, Ägyptisches Wörterbuch II, Mittleres Reich und Zweite Zwischenzeit (Mainz, 2006) 2445-2449. 9. W. Spiegelberg, Demotische Texte auf Krügen, Mit einer Lichtdruck- und acht Steindrucktafeln in besonderem

Folioumschlag, DeSt. 5 (Leipzig, 1912) 16. 10. J. Fr. Quack, in: Fr. Hoffmann/J. Fr. Quack, Anthologie der demotischen Literatur, Zweite, neubearbeitete

und erheblich erweiterte Auflage, Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie, Band 4 (Münster, 2018) 257. 11. H. S. Smith/W. J. Tait, Saqqâra Demotic Papyri I (P. Dem. Saq. I), Texts from Excavations, Seventh Memoir

(London, 1983) 199. 12. Ibid. 199. 13. Ibid. 199. 14. M. A. Stadler, Isis, das göttliche Kind und die Weltordnung, Neue religiöse Texte aus dem Fayum nach dem

Papyrus Wien D. 12006 Recto, Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer), Neue Serie XXIII Folge < MPER XXVIII> (Wien, 2004) 69.

15. H. S. Smith/W. J. Tait, Saqqâra Demotic Papyri I (P. Dem. Saq. I), Texts from Excavations, Seventh Memoir (London, 1983) 199.

16. Ibid. 199. 17. Ibid. 199. 18. E. Edel, Zu den Inschriften auf den Jahreszeitenreliefs der „Weltkammer“ aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des

Niuserre, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, I., Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1961, Nr. 8 (Göttingen, 1961) 225.

18. L. Störk, LÄ II, s. v. Fauna, 132; W. Helck, LÄ IV, s. v. Pirol, 1054. 19. F. Ll. Griffith, The Petrie Papyri, Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob (Principally of the Middle King-

dom), Text (London, 1889) 100.


25) Eine ägyptisch-akkadische Parallele hinsichtlich der Vorstellung von Soldaten als Frauen — In diesem Beitrag wird eine ägyptisch-akkadische Gemeinsamkeit in Bezug auf die weibliche Rolle von Soldaten demonstriert. Im Rahmen der psychologischen Kriegsführung wurde der militärische Gegner durch den Frontalangriff auf dessen Männlichkeit verächtlich gemacht. Der Sprechakt wird hier an je einem akkadischen und ägyptischen Beispiel verdeutlicht.

Die Untersuchung setzt mit dem akkadischen Beispiel ein. Die folgende Textstelle kann dafür als repräsentativ gelten, bei der es sich um einen Auszug aus einem Vertrag zwischen Assur-Nerari V. und König Mati-Ilu von Arpad handelt:

„Lass denselben (=Mati-Ilu) eine Prostituierte sein, seine Soldaten sind Frauen“1)

Die hier zu sehende Verweiblichung der Soldaten hängt nach Chapman2) mit der Ängstlichkeit vor dem Feind zusammen, während die Verwandlung in eine Prostituierte auf die Unfähigkeit zur Zeugung eines Erben hinausläuft. Die akkadische Vorstellung wurde bereits von Smith3) mit hebräischen und grie-


– 53 –

chischen Parallelen in Verbindung gebracht. Im Folgenden wird eine ägyptische Parallele hinzugefügt, die theoretisch das gleiche Konzept widerspiegelt. Der Blickwinkel hat sich dort nur leicht verschoben.

Die besondere Aufmerksamkeit hat in diesem Fall der demotische Papyrus Berlin 13640 verdient. Der stark zerstörte Inhalt lässt vermuten, dass es offenbar um Erlebnisse eines Ägypters in Babylonien gegangen ist. Die folgende Zeile ist für die hiesigen Zwecke am interessantesten:

„…ṯꜣi=n (sic !) nꜣ ḥbś.w s.t-ḥim.t ḥr ꜣt.t=n ḫr (?) ir=n ip.t rmt-ḳnḳn ꜥn“4)

„…].. wir haben die Frauengewänder von uns genommen (und) tun (jetzt) wieder Kriegshandwerk“

In die Diskussion werden hier offenbar Krieger eingeführt, die sich für die Schlacht rüsten. Die Soldaten beugen dabei dem bloßen Verdacht der Verweiblichung vor, was bildlich durch das Ablegen der Frauengewänder ausgedrückt wird. Die Kleidermetaphorik kehrt in vielen alten Sprachen wieder. Das Hauptmotiv ist damit bereits freier abgewandelt. Die Selbstaussage gibt sich daher wohl dem Spiel mit dessen Inhalt hin. Die Männer versichern sich offenbar ihrer Stärke oder spornen sich gegenseitig an. In so expliziter Form kommt das Motiv im Ägyptischen offenbar nur hier vor.

In der Auswertung sind folgende Punkte hervorzuheben: Die Parallele tritt wohl markant genug hervor. Die Annahme einer direkten oder indirekten Abhängigkeit führt gleichwohl in die Sackgasse. Die Idee eines im gesamten Ostmittelmeerraum existenten Reservoirs an Symbolen und Metaphern à la Nissinen5) erfüllt den Zweck wesentlich besser. Die Lebensdauer jenes Apparates wird von Nissinen auf mehrere tausend Jahre taxiert. Die einzelnen Sprachen brauchten sich aus diesem Angebot nur noch das für sie Passende heraussuchen. Die hier behandelten Beispiele zeigen ohne jeden Zweifel, dass die Vorstellung der Soldaten als Frauen im gesamten Nahen Osten zirkuliert ist.

Anmerkungen

1. CAD, S, 51. 2. C. R. CHAPMAN, The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter, Harvard Semitic

Museum Publications Number 62 (Winona Lake, 2004), 48-50. 3. M. S. SMITH, Poetic Heroes, Literary Commemorations of Warriors and Warrior Culture in the Early

Biblical World (Grand Rapids, 2014), 76-77. 4 W. SPIEGELBERG, Aus der Geschichte vom Zauberer Ne-Nefer-Ke-Sokar, Demotischer Papyrus Berlin

13640, Studies presented to F. Ll. Griffith (London, 1932), 172/11 (TM 55852); zu dieser Stelle vgl. auch J. Fr. QUACK, Einführung in die altägyptische Literaturgeschichte III. Die demotische und gräko-ägyptische Literatur, Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie Band 3 (München, 2005), 42-43.

5. M. NISSINEN, Love Lyrics of Nabu and TaSmetu: An Assyrian Song of Songs?, in: M. DIETRICH/I. KOTTSIEPER (Hrsg.), „Und Moses schrieb dieses Lied auf“, Studien zum Alten Testament und zum alten Orient, FS O. Loretz, AOAT 250 (Münster, 1998), 624.


26) SUKUD.GIM, “as above”, an intertextual reference in the Great Star List used as an editorial note in the colophon of the diagnostic omen series SA.GIG — The so-called Great Star list (Koch-Westenholz 1995: 187–205), a list known basically from Neo-Assyrian sources, is organised in two corresponding columns like a ṣâtu commentary. One section correlates months with countries:

270 ITU.BÁR KUR.URI.KI | ITU.GU₄ KUR.NIM.MA.KI 271 ITU.SIG₄ | KUR.MAR.TU.KI 272 ITU.ŠU | KUR.SU.KI u gu-ti-i 273 šu-tab-lak-kut-tum | SUKUD.GIM

We know from several sources that this sequence of correlations was continued, see. e.g. K. 3123 (ACh 2 Suppl. 19), a Neo-Assyrian tablet from the series šumma sîn ina tāmartī-šu according to its colophon (see for this series see Gehlken 2007):

13ʹ …: DIŠ ITU.BÁR ITU.NE ITU.GÁN ana KUR.URI.KI 14ʹ [DIŠ ITU.GUD ITU.KIN ITU.A]B ⸢KUR.NIM⸣.MA.KI : DIŠ ITU.SIG₄ ITU.DUL ITU.ZÍZ KUR.MAR.TU.KI


– 54 –

15ʹ [DIŠ ITU.ŠU ITU.APIN ITU.ŠE KU]R.⸢SU⸣.BIR₄.KI ITU.MEŠ šá AN.TA.LÙ d30

The months “for lunar eclipses” (15ʹ: ITU.MEŠ šá AN.TA.LÙ d30) correlate with countries as follows: Months I, V, IX correspond with Akkad; months II, VI, X with Elam; months III, VII, XI with Amurru; and months IV, VIII, XII with Subartu (and Gutium). The four countries are correlated with three months each. In thus, presenting the first cycle of a recurring sequence, I-II-III-IV for the months, paired with A-B-C-D for the countries, the scribe of the Great Star List could simply use the expression šu-tab-lak-kut-tum SUKUD.GIM to refer to the recurring pattern. On this Weidner (1959–60: 109b) commented “SUKUD wird vor allem mit akkad. mēlû, “Höhe” gleichgesetzt (…). Darf man also s u k u d - d i m übersetzen “wie das Höherstehende, wie das Obenstehende” oder wäre das eine unzulässige Übertragung eines modernen Begriffes auf das Sumerische?”. CAD Š III (1992) 394b followed his suggestion and gives “the cycle (for the next two groups of four months) is as the above (correspondence)”, translating šutablakkuttum as “cycle”. Similar but amplified we find “mutatis mutandis as above” by Ulla Koch-Westenholz (1995: 203). All agree that the expression means to continue “as above”.

The same logogram occurs twice in the catalogue of the series SA.GIG and alamdimmû, known from one early Neo-Assyrian tablet from Kalḫu (ND 4358+4366, CTN IV 71; see Kinnier Wilson 1956: 130–146 with corrections by Finkel 1988) and one Neo-Babylonian tablet, probably from Babylon (BM 41237+46607+47163; Finkel 1988). In this catalogue, Esagil-kīn-apli gives the order of the individual tablets of the series identified by their incipits and the number of entries, and explains his editorial work on these series conducted during the reign of the Babylonian king Adad-apla-iddina (1068–1047 BCE according to Middle Chronology). After listing a group of tablets, Esagil-kīn-apli states the total number of entries followed by the title of the respective sub-series. He then adds editorial notes: one is GIBIL NU TIL (obv. 4), “new (edition) - not finished”, i.e. not a completely revised edition; another (sa-di-ru šá) SUR.GIBIL ṣab-[tu₄] (obv. 19, 31), to be read (sadīrū ša) z/ṣarâ ṣab[tu], “(sections for which) a (new) ‘weaving’ (of the entries) has been (under)tak[en]”, i.e. a (completely) revised edition (for the Akkadian reading of SUR.GIBIL see already Kinnier Wilson 1956: 138 and Lieberman 1990: 333 note 182). The following two sub-series of SA.GIG, each covering five tablets, have the following editorial note (see Finkel 1988: 147; Heeßel 2000: 15; Schmidtchen 2018: 140):

37 NIGIN 4 2 UŠ 20+[20+8 DIŠ Š]U[B-t]ú ŠUB-su-ma SA.GIG AN.TA.ŠUB.BA suSUKUD.GIM (37) In total 40[8 (entries for the sub-series) ‘If col]la[pse] befalls him and (he has) the symptom of AN.TA.ŠUB.BA (i.e. epilepsy)’ – suSUKUD.GIM.

43 [NIGIN] 3+[…] UŠ 5 DIŠ UD.DA TAB-su-ma SUKUD.GIM (43) [In total] 180+[…]+5 (entries for the sub-series) ‘If ṣētu-fever has made him feverish’ – SUKUD.GIM.

While CAD E (1958) 111a translated SUKUD.GIM “as above (reading uncertain)”, Irving Finkel (1988: 150) said it should be included with “other technical terms here, still quite obscure”. The second term he mentioned was GIŠ.GIŠ.A which is added to the title of the last sub-series of both, SA.GIG and alamdimmû. Eric Schmidtchen (2018: 153), understands SUKUD as a logogram for šūlû. He cites the phrase ina muḫḫi ṭuppi šūlû (an expression in an URU.AN.NA tablet to be discussed further below) which he interprets as “to enter upon (or at the top of) a tablet (as incipit)”, and suggests (p. 154) the term SUKUD.GIM should be read kīma šūlê, to mean “(structured) according to (topics) recorded (on individual tablets)”. Marten Stol (personal communication)1) disputes the meaning “to enter (upon a tablet)” for the Š stem of elû, but on the contrary suggests “to remove, to annul”. He bases this on evidence in Old Babylonian letters: see AbB 4 69: 37-38: la wa-tar i-ba-aq-qá-ar / ši-ma-tum-ma šu-la-a, “he must no further vindicate (the field), (the earlier) sales are annulled”; or CUSAS 36 no. 194: 20-21: i-na tu-up-pi-im / šu-li-a-šu, “remove him from the tablet”. CAD E 132a refers to a Nuzi text SMN 2249:7 with u ina ṭuppi šunšu la šu-ú-lu, but this cannot be verified; the reference is wrong and I have not been able to identify that tablet.2) According to Stol, the meaning “to remove, to annul from a tablet” (ina ṭuppim šūlû) could also be applied to the phrase ina muḫḫi ṭuppi šūlû in the colophon of a Neo-Assyrian tablet of the series URU.AN.NA, K. 4373 (CT 14 9 = Fincke 2021: nR3-7) rev. ii 15-16: ina sa-di-ri MU-šú-nu ul am/im-bi-ma / ina UGU DUB.MEŠ ú-še-li, “I/he did not mention their names (i.e. titles of the quoted tablets) in the sections, I/he


– 55 –

removed (them) from the tablets” (in contrast to CAD E 132a: “but did enter them on the tablets”; similar Schmidtchen 2018: 153).

In the colophons of two Late Babylonian copies of letters from Babylonian scholars to the Assyrian king, replying to his attempts to acquire Babylonian tablets for the royal library, this phrase occurs and could be translated “to remove”, “to extract” or “to copy”:

– The colophon of a Late Babylonian copy of the letter of the scholars from Babylon (Frame–George 2007: 270–277) says (BM 28825 rev. 39): […šaṭru annû ina UGU GI]Š.DA šá MURUB₄.MEŠ šu-ú-li, “[…this text] was removed (or extracted) [from a w]riting-board, from (lit. of) the middle parts (of the original text)” (Frame–George 2007: 275: “was copied [from a] writing-board”).

– The colophon of a Late Babylonian copy of the letter of the scholars from Borsippa (Frame–George 2007: 265–270) says (BM 45642 rev. 21): šá-ṭár an-na-a ina UGU-ḫi NA₄.R[Ú.A š]á NA₄.GIŠ.NU₁₁.GAL ⸢šu⸣-ú-li ana kan-n[a]-⸢a-tú⸣ gab-bi šá-pi-ir, “this inscription was removed (or extracted) from a stela of alabaster (and) sent to all colleagues” (Frame–George 2007: 269: “was copied on to a tablet (or tablets) of alabaster”). Because we no longer have access to the writing board or to the stela these copies on clay tablets

are our only record of the incident. It is even possible that these two Late Babylonian copies of letters recording the endeavours of the Assyrian king and the third one about the same matter (CT 22, 1; BM 28825; BM 45642; see Frame–George 2007) were all composed or at least reworked in Hellenistic times (see Ronnie Goldstein 2010).

John Wee (2019: 336) understands the term SUKUD.GIM in the SA.GIG colophon to be “based on a common idiomatic use of the verb šūlû (logogram SUKUD) for the production of a document” and translates “according to (documentation) furnished” (p. 317). According to the evidence given in CAD E (131b–132a elû 10.b), the meaning of ṭuppa šūlû is to bring out or produce a tablet or document as proof of a claim. Both Schmidtchen (2018) and Wee (2019) assume that the logogram SUKUD.GIM refers to a “tablet”, although it does not include DUB for ṭuppu. Wee (2019: 336 note 1059) explains “the label SUKUD.GIM could simply refer to reliance on older (documented) textual traditions, whose topical arrangement in Sa-gig Chapter IV and V was merely a reflection of how content happened to be organized in these earlier traditions”. This interpretation is based on the observation already stated by Nils Heeßel (2000: 107 with note 47) that both the sub-series concerned do not only have parallels with entries in older tablets, but that complete tablets have the same structure and sequence as older tablets. Thus, it seems that Esagil-kīn-apli did not rework the text of these tablets, which is why he did not add the note GIBIL, “new (edition)”, to indicate he had prepared a new edition of these sub-series. He seems to have simply included the tablets of the earlier series unrevised into his new edition. Since the other scholars knew these “earlier” tablets already, Esagil-kīn-apli, by adding SUKUD.GIM, stressed the fact that from now on all tablets with these incipits – old and new – belong to the sub-series concerned in the given sequence. Then this editorial note would mean the same as in the Great Star List, “as above”, contra Schmidtchen 2018: 152 note 108.

The semantic field of the logogram SUKUD covers being or becoming high (see also Schmidtchen 2018: 152) and includes the following cognate lexemes: elû, adjective, “tall, high, exalted”, “upper”; the nouns elītu, “elevated terrain”, and mēlû, “height”; šūlû (elû, Š-stem), “to raise; to produce (a document as proof); to deduct”; it also includes šaqû, “high, tall”; šiāḫu, “to grow (tall)”; šīḫu, “tall, high, stately”; zaqāru, “to raise, to build high” and zaqru, “high, steep, tall”. It is not equated for the adverbs elēnu, “above”, or eliš, “up, on top; upwards”; for those the equivalent logogram is AN.TA. It may well be that the Akkadian equivalent of the logogram SUKUD.GIM is not related to any of these readings at all.

I do not wish to propose a new Akkadian reading, but I believe that the editorial note SUKUD.GIM in the SA.GIG catalogue has the same meaning as in the Great Star List and refers to the fact that Esagil-kīn-apli arranged the unrevised tablets of the earlier series for these two sub-series in the sequence of the incipits of the tablets, with the meaning “as (given) above”. If this is correct, we can identify four different terms or phrases used as scribal abbreviations when referring to earlier material:

A. MIN, KI.MIN and ŠU.BI.AŠ.ÀM, “ditto”, to refer to a single word, a part of a sentence or a subordinate clause that was written in a similar position in the sentence immediately preceding where those terms were used.


– 56 –

B. GABA.RI, “correspondingly” (see miḫru, “equivalent, correspondence”), referring to a part of a sentence or to one or more subordinate clauses that were written in a similar position in the sentence immediately preceding where this term was used.

C. SUKUD.GIM, “as above”, to refer to two or more lines immediately preceding the use of that term. D. kî/kīma annâ(m), “like this, like that”, occurs in religious texts in connection with verbs of

speaking, such as manû, “to recite”, qabû, “to say”, or dabābu, “to speak”, to indicate the repetition of the words of an incantation already indicated by its title or its wording. The similar phrase kî annî qabû ,“to speak as follows”, anticipates certain words to be spoken forthwith.

Notes 1. I would like to thank Marten Stol for sharing his thoughts about šūlû in connection with tablets or other

documents and the references with me. 2. SMN 2249 is published as HSS XIV 32, a letter from the king about a horse that Šattawazza gave to Akip-

tašenni and that is to be returned a few months later, after month hinzuri. There is no mention of a tablet at all. See the edition in Kendall 1975: 377–378.

Bibliography

AbB 4: F. R. KRAUS, Briefe aus dem Archive des Šamaš-ḫāzir in Paris und Oxford (TCL 7 und OECT 3). AbB 4. Leiden, 1968.

CUSAS 36: A. R. GEORGE, Old Babylonian Texts in the Schøyen Collection Part One: Selected Letters. CUSAS 36. Bethesda, MA, 2018.

FINCKE, J. C. 2021, An Ancient Mesopotamian Herbal Handbook. The Series URU.AN.NA and MÚD.UR.MAḪ Vol. 1: The Tablets. Orient & Méditerranée 33. Leuven – Paris – Bristol.

FINKEL, I. L. 1988, “Adad-apla-iddina, Esagil-kīn-apli, and the Series SA.GIG”. Pp. 143–159 in: E. LEICHTY et al. (eds.), A Scientific Humanist. Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, Philadelphia, PA.

FRAME, G. and A. R. GEORGE 2005, “The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting”, Iraq 67.1, 265–284.

GEHLKEN, E. 2007, “Die Serie DIŠ Sîn ina tāmartī-šu im Überblick”, NABU 2007/4. GOLDSTEIN, R. 2010, “Late Babylonian Letters on Collecting Tablets and Their Hellenistic Background – a

Suggestion”, JNES 69.2, 199–207. HEEßEL, N. P. 2001, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik. AOAT 43. Münster. KENDALL, T. 1975, Warfare and Military Matters in the Nuzi Texts. PhD dissertation, Brandeis University. KINNIER WILSON, J. V. 1956, “Two Medical Texts from Nimrud”, Iraq 18, 130–146. KOCH-WESTENHOLZ, U. 1995, Mesopotamian Astrology, CNI Publications 19. Copenhagen. LIEBERMAN, S. J. 1990, “Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts: Towards an Understanding of

Assurbanipal’s Personal Tablet Collection”. Pp. 305–336 in: T. I. ABUSCH et al. (eds.), Lingering over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, Atlanta, GA.

SCHMIDTCHEN, E. 2018, “Esagil-kīn-apli’s Catalogue of Sakikkû and Alamdimmû”. Pp. 137–157 in: U. STEINERT (ed.), Assyrian and Babylonian Scholarly Text Catalogues. BAM 9. Boston – Berlin.

WEE, J. Z. 2019, Knowledge and Rhetoric in Medical Commentary. Ancient Mesopotamian Commentaries on a Handbook of Medical Diagnosis (Sa-gig). CM 49/1. Leiden – Boston.

WEIDNER, E. F. 1959–60, “Ein astrologischer Sammeltext aus der Sargonidenzeit”, AfO 19, 105–113.

Jeanette C. FINCKE <[email protected]> Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden (NETHERLANDS)

27) Ḫapi-maniḫi: A new Egyptian name in cuneiform? — The personal name Ḫapi-maniḫi appears in a business document (StAT 3 95) from the city of Assur and the reign of Ashurbanipal.1) The name in question is not included in the PNA-volumes or in the lists of the PNAo (which provide updates to the PNA-volumes). Question is, how can this evidently new name be classified in an etymological sense?

Before turning to the actual analysis, the document in question needs to be described. It consists of a debt note which states that an unknown (due to a lacuna) measure of mina and five shekels of silver have been lended by a man named Ḫur-waṣi (IḪur-ba-ṣi) to a man named Ḫapi-maniḫi (IḪa-pi-ma-ni-ḫi). The rate of interest is then specified, followed by a passage which is partly broken but which seems to convey the provision that sons of Ḫapi-maniḫi will stay with the creditor (Ḫur-waṣi) as a pledge (and that Ḫapi-


– 57 –

maniḫi will be financially liable if his sons die or flee). The date (658 BCE) of the debt note is then given, followed by a list of five (male) witnesses, namely Pir’-mute, Nammur-abu, Tālu, Nergal-[i]bni, and Tabni-Aia, of which the first two individuals are presented as military officers.

As indicated by the title of this note, Ḫapi-maniḫi may be an Egyptian name. Both contexts and the name itself speak in favour of such an interpretation. Beginning with contexts, the temporal context, that is, the date of the document (the reign of Ashurbanipal), is unproblematic, considering the fact that Egypt was conquered by Assyria in 671 BCE. As for the spatial context, the document comes from Assur, long known to have housed a sizeable Egyptian population in the seventh century BCE. The extensive N31-archive (to which this document belongs) is generally referred to as an archive of Egyptians (PEDERSÉN 1986, 125-129; DONBAZ and PARPOLA 2001, xvi; FAIST 2007, 125-129), and so is the nearby archive Assur 52b (RADNER 2016, 121). As for the textual context, the name of the creditor, Ḫur-waṣi, is classified as safely Egyptian, meaning “Horus is sound” (Eg. Ḥr-wḏꜢ).2) Moreover, one of the witnesses, Tālu (or Tallu), can be identified as an Egyptian on account of his appearing (along with different Egyptians) in several other texts (StAT 3 78, KAV 189) from the N31-archive.3)

Turning to the name itself, the name of the Egyptian divine Apis bull may be present in the name Ḫapi-maniḫi. According to H. RANKE (1910, 56), whose work on Egyptian names in Mesopotamian cuneiform remains fundamental, the name of the Apis bull (Ḥp in Egyptian) is attested as ḫpi, ḫappi’, and ḫapi in Mesopotamian cuneiform. The PNA-volumes, which aim to present all persons and names attested in Neo-Assyrian texts, seem to confirm the analysis of RANKE, for example by classifying the name Al-ḫapi-mepi as meaning “the Apis bull has been brought to Memphis”, and the name Ḫapi-nāu as meaning “Apis is lenient”.4)

However, how can the second element (maniḫi) of the name be explained? A look at the work by RANKE (1935) on Egyptian personal names may provide the answer. Notably, the name Ḥp-mnḥ, which means “Apis rejoices”, is attested in the Egyptian onomasticon (RANKE 1935, 237:14).5) It is a male name, attested several times (in later texts), and corresponds well to the rules regarding how Egyptian forms are rendered in Mesopotamian cuneiform, for example in the sense that Egyptian ḥ is rendered as ḫ in cuneiform (RANKE 1910, 91). Although the word in question (mnḥ) is not brought up in the list of Egyptian words and names in cuneiform compiled by RANKE (1910, 43-62), it may be rewarding to observe that the Egyptian verb mn appears as man(a), min, and menna in cuneiform (RANKE 1910, 51), showing that the consonants are separated by vowels, just as in maniḫi. Concerning the last-mentioned reading (menna), it is interesting to note that the name Ḫapi-menna (Eg. Ḥp-mn(w)), meaning “Apis endures”, is attested in the Neo-Babylonian text corpus (RANKE 1910, 51; 1935, 237:13).

In sum, identifying Ḫapi-maniḫi with the Egyptian name Ḥp-mnḥ is perfectly reasonable, both from the viewpoints of contexts and philology. A small piece of the puzzle on the vowel structure of the Egyptian language and on the Egyptian community in Assyria can be added.

Notes 1. VAT 20769 = Ass. 13319 t. The document is published by B. FAIST (2007, 144-145). 2. For this interpretation, see PNA 2/I, pp. 481-482 (R. MATTILA). Ḫur-waṣi 6. (the present individual) appears

as a senior figure in numerous documents from the N31-archive. 3. Regarding the name of the witnesses, Tabni-Aia and Nergal-ibni are Akkadian (M. CAPRARO, PNA 3/II,

p. 1300; H.D. BAKER, PNA 2/II, p. 946), and Tālu is West Semitic (R. MATTILA, PNA 3/II, p. 1305). The names Pir’-mute and Nammur-abu are not included in the PNA, although at least the latter appears to be Akkadian.

4. For these interpretations, see PNA 1/I, p. 97 (R. MATTILA) and PNA 2/I, p. 458 (R. MATTILA). 5. There are several words transcribed as mnḥ in Wb (“Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache”) II. The one that is

classified by the sign F18 (of the sign list of A.H. GARDINER), just as in the writing of the name Ḥp-mnḥ, is translated as “frohlocken u.ä. (beim Schlachten)” in Wb II, p. 84. Supposedly, the Apis bull, incarnated by the god Ptah (QUIRKE 1992, 16), rejoices at the offerings presented to him.

References

DONBAZ, V. and PARPOLA, S. (2001), Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul, Saarbrücken. FAIST, B. (2007), Alltagstexte aus neuassyrischen Archiven und Bibliotheken in der Stadt Assur, Wiesbaden. PEDERSÉN, O. (1986), Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur: A Survey of the Material from the German

Excavations, Part II, Uppsala. QUIRKE, S. (1992), Ancient Egyptian Religion, London.


– 58 –

RADNER, K. (2016), “Die beiden neuassyrischen Privatarchive”, in P.A. MIGLUS, K. RADNER and F.M. STĘPNIOWSKI (eds.), Ausgrabungen in Assur: Wohnquartiere in der Weststadt Teil I, Wiesbaden, 79-139.

RANKE, H. (1910), Keilschriftliches Material zur altägyptischen Vokalisation, Berlin. RANKE, H. (1935), Die ägyptischen Personennamen, Band I: Verzeichnis der Namen, Glückstadt.

Mattias KARLSSON <[email protected]> Uppsala University (SWEDEN)

28) Assyrian-style dress in the Levant: Examples from Sidon and Salamis — Assyrian or Assyrian-style artefacts were found throughout the Near East. Those finds, which represent Assyrian cultural influence, are mainly pots (Adachi 1997, Hunt 2015, Stern 2015), glyptics (Marcus 1996; Ornan, Ortiz, Wolff 2013), and architectural features and elements (Amiran, Dunayevski 1958; Soldi 2017). But the influence of the Assyrians appears to be more varied than that. Indeed, inscribed objects,1) jewels and other rare objects were also unearthed.2) Assyrian dress elements, which were not well studied, were part of those rare testimonies. It is worth noting that we have only indirect indications of the presence of Assyrian dress outside of Assyria, while it appears on locally made sculptures. This short paper will shed the light on the question of the influence of the Assyrian dress in the Levant by presenting two examples, one from Salamis (Cyprus), and another from Sidon (Lebanon).

The Example from Salamis This first example (Figure 1) is a 62-centimetre-high terracotta figurine coming from Salamis and

held at the British Museum (1891,0806.39). It was found by a British mission in 1890, during the excavation at “Toumba”, a site south of Salamis (Karageorghis 1993: 31). It is dated between 650 and 575 BC (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1891-0806-39).

The figurine represents a bearded man in richly decorated clothes. The man has a medium-sized beard, which is arranged in three horizontal registers and marked by vertical incisions, long hair falling behind the headdress – a turban or a diadem – and he is wearing hemispherical earrings. Two layers of clothes are clearly visible on the statue: a tunic or chiton (the inner one) and a mantle (the outer one) as they are commonly named by the scholars who commented on that piece (Kiely 2018: 149-151; Karageorghis 1993: 31-32; Törnkvist 1972: 9-10; Gjerstad 1948: 98). It is also possible that the triangle in the lower part of the figurine represents an inner piece of cloth, beneath the tunic (Karageorghis 1993: 32). We can notice that the mantle, covering both shoulders, is decorated with bicolour fringes, and folded on the left shoulder. The left arm, held straight alongside the body, is apparent, while the right one is bent toward the breast and is beneath the mantle. Compared to the Neo-Assyrian dress, the tunic/chiton and the mantle are very close to the two main pieces of clothing of the Assyrian costume: the inner piece, which is also named tunic, and the outer one, which is commonly described as a shale by art historians (Moonja 2010: 1).

Even if we didn’t recognise in the Cypriot example any specific type of Assyrian dress arrangement that has been defined (see the typology in Moonja 2010), the idea of a fringed shale folded on one shoulder and/or placed above one of the arms directly recalls Assyrian dress tradition.3) In addition, the design of the beard and the hair also has clear parallels in the Assyrian art.4) On the contrary, the earrings do not seem to have Assyrian parallels. A Long tunic and fringed shale are typical of high-ranking and royal status characters in the Neo-Assyrian art.

That statue is not an isolated case. Indeed, other terracotta figurines from Cyprus, but less well preserved, have also some links to Assyrian dress.5)

The Example from Sidon This second example from Sidon (Figures 2-3), now at the National Museum of Beirut (n° 2005),

was initially part of the Ford collection. Indeed, it was Reverend George Ford, director of the American Presbyterian Mission at Saida (Sidon), who unearthed it, among other pieces, in 1901 during the construction of the American School.6) The damaged limestone sculpture is 110 cm high and dated from the 6th century BC (Maïla Afeiche 2020: 40).


– 59 –

In this example, the Assyrian influence is not represented by the clothes, which are typically Egyptian, but by a particular accessory: the bracelet of the right arm (Figure 3). It is a double ring bracelet with a rosette motif. The rings are topped with a lion’s head shape. Very close bracelets were unearthed in Assyria and are depicted in Assyrian art (Moonja 2010, fig. 33 p. 17; Albenda 2020, fig. 1 p. 74). The Rosette is a very common motif in Assyria, where it is the symbol of Ishtar and, particularly during the Neo-Assyrian period, the symbol of the Assyrian kingship (Albenda 2020).

Figure 1. Arthur et al 1891, pl. IX Figure 3. Maïla Afeiche 2020, figure p. 40

Discussion and conclusion At a first glance, those two examples seem very different: the Salamis one shows the Assyrian tunic

and shale, and the Assyrian beard and hair arrangement, while the Sidonian one shows only an Assyrian-style bracelet. But after a first analysis, it is clear that they share the same adaptative attitude towards the Assyrian dress, since they are not a strict copy of the Assyrian model. The figurine of Cyprus strives only to be linked, even in a vague way, to the general image of the Assyrian dress, without adopting any strict model; and the sculpture of Sidon makes only a little reference of the Assyrian dress by the rosette bracelet. So, we are clearly in front of adaptations, and not only adoptions of Assyrian cultural elements.7)

Those adaptations of Assyrian dress elements have in common to be linked to high status and royal rank characters. It is interesting to note that many Assyrian or Assyrian-like objects found throughout the empire are also linked to those kinds of characters, which is especially true for some kind of earthenware and metalware – see for example, some kind of “Palace Ware” (Baaklini 2016; Hunt 2015). In addition, we also found in some of those objects the will to depict some general Assyrian characteristics, without necessarily being real copies of Assyrian artefacts.8)

The presence of Assyrian dress-style in the Levant can be explained by the diffusion of the Assyrian culture, either by direct contact with Assyria or indirect contact passing mainly true regional and local competitive emulation,9) which seems to have been intense during the 7th century. Some scholars even call for a “cultural koine” to be acknowledged in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Herrmann, Tyson 2019: 20). Concerning dress in particular, it could be understood by the appearance of a new “way of life”,10) linked

Figure 2. Maïla Afeiche 2020, figure p. 41


– 60 –

to Assyria’s display of power, and which translated through specific activities, like banqueting – it is worth noting that the most numerous Assyrian-style objects are pottery used in royal banquets. It could be possible to imagine that the Assyrian way of banqueting, which influenced not only the tableware, but also the customs of feasting of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean – see the possible Assyrian influence on banqueting on Kline (Dentzer 1971: 216) – also influenced, at some point, the dress in the peripheries of the Assyrian Empire. Indeed, like tableware, attitudes, and furniture, the dress is an essential part of the Assyrian commensality. That influence, as suggested by the dating of the example from Sidon, could have lasted even after the disappearance of the Assyrian Empire.

Notes 1. For some examples, see the Neo-Assyrian documents published in Horowitz, 2006. 2. See, for example, an amulet from Rasm el-Tanjara (Syria) in Baaklini 2021, p. 269-273, or the Assyrian

terracotta from Tell Keisan (Palestine) in Paraire 1980, pl. 102: 10. 3. See for example, Houston, Hornblower 1920, plate IX and XIII, which are respectively integrated to Style A

and Stye B in Moonja 2010 (p. 6-8). 4. Compare, for example, with the Assyrian relief fragment depicting the head of a soldier BM 118830. 5. For example, see Karageorghis 1993, cat. 94 for the shale and cat. 163 for the hair arrangement. For other

possible examples, see Parpas 2018, p. 297-300. 6. Very little was written about the context of those discoveries (see Clermont-Ganneau 1920 and Contenau 1923,

p. 276-278). 7. Concerning the question of adaptation of Assyrian elements in the art of Cyprus, see also Kiely 2018 (p. 153)

and Parpas 2018 (p. 297-298). 8. On that question, see in particular Hunt 2015, p. 195-196. 9. On the means of the diffusion of the Assyrian art, see Baaklini 2021, p. 296-298. 10. In the way it was defined by Thorstein 1899, p. 75.

Bibliography

ADACHI, T. 1997. The Fine carinated Bowl in the Iron Age, Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 18, p. 41-55. ALBENDA, P. 2020. The Royal Assyrian Rosette, NABU 2020/31, p. 73-75. AMIRAN, R. – DUNAYEVSKY, I. 1958. The Assyrian Open-Court Building and Its Palestinian Derivatives,

BASOR 149, p. 25-32. ARTHUR, J. – MUNRO, R. – TUBS, H. A. – WARWICK, W. 1891. Excavations in Cyprus, 1890. Third Season’s Work.

Salamis, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 12, p. 59-198. BAAKLINI, A.-A. 2021. Présence et influence assyriennes dans le royaume de Hamat, Oxford. BAAKLINI, A.-A. 2016. Do the Assyrian Fine Carinated Bowls Have a Functional Form? Experience on a 3D

Printing Copy, Akkadica 137/1, p. 97-102. CLERMONT-GANNEAU, C. 1920. CRAIBL 64/5, p. 405-408. CONTENAU, G. 1923. Deuxième mission archéologique à Sidon (1920), Syria 4, p. 261-281. DENTZER, J.-M. 1971. Aux origines de l’iconographie du banquet couché, Revue Archéologique 1971/2, p. 95-224. GJERSTAD, E. 1948. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, vol. IV: 2. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-

Classical Periods, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Stockholm. HERRMANN, V. – TYSON, C. W. 2019. Introduction: The Construction of the Imperial Periphery in the Neo-Assyrian

Studies. In: HERRMANN, V. – TYSON, C. W. (eds), Imperial Peripheries in the Neo-Assyrian Period, University Press of Colorado: Louisville, p. 3-40.

HOUSTON, M. – HORNBLOWER, F. S. 1920. Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian, and Persian Costumes, London. HOROWITZ, W. – OSHIMA, T. 2006. Cuneiform in Canaan. Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient

Times, Jerusalemy. HUNT, A. 2015. Palace Ware Across the Neo-Assyrian Imperial Landscape: Social Value and Semiotic Meaning,

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 78, Leiden, Boston. KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1993. The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus: 3. The Cypro-Archaic Period: Large and

Medium Size Sculpture, Nicosia. KIELY, T. 2018. Cyprus and Assyria. In BRERETON, G. (ed), I am Ashurbanipal King of the World, King of Assyria,

London, p. 138-153. MAÏLA AFEICHE, A.-M. 2020. Le guide du Musée national de Beyrouth, Ministère de la culture: Beyrouth. MARCUS, M. I. 1996. Emblems of Identity and Prestige: The Seals and Sealings from Hasanlu, Iran. Commentary

and Catalogue, Philadelphia. MOONJA, K. 2010. A Study on the Assyrian Costume, Journal of Fashion Business 14/3, p. 1-19. ORNAN, T. – ORTIZ, S. – WOLFF, S. 2013: A Newly Discovered Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seal from Gezer in Context,

Israel Exploration Journal 63, p. 6-25.


– 61 –

PARAIRE, D. J. 1980. Les figurines, in BRIEND, J. – HUMBERT, J.-B. (eds), Tell Keisan (1971-1976), une cité phénicienne en Galilée, Fribourg, Göttingen, Paris, pp. 331-352.

PARPAS, A. P. The Assyrian Empire and Cyprus. CreateSpace. SOLDI, S. 2017. “Assyrian Clay Hands” in the Architecture of the Ancient Near East, Metropolitan Museum Journal

52, p. 8-23. STERN, E. 2015. Assyrian-Type Pottery, in GITIN, S. (ed), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the

Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, vol. 2, p. 533-554. THORSTEIN, V. 1899. The Theory of Leisure Class. An Economic Study of Institutions, New York. TÖRNKVIST, S. 1972. Arms, Armour and Dress of the Terracotta Sculpture from Ayia Irini, Cyprus,

Medelhavmuseet Bulletin 6, p. 7-55.

Adonice-A. BAAKLINI ˂[email protected]˃ Freelance Archaeologist – UMR Orient et Méditerranée (Sorbonne Université), Paris (FRANCE)

29) Prisme d’Assurbanipal du type G – un fragment complémentaire au Louvre — Un fragment de prisme aux dimensions L : 6,3 cm; H : 7,7 cm et P : 4,9 cm porte le numéro du Louvre SH085491. Il est composé de deux fragments recollés ensemble. À l’origine, c’était un élément de la partie inférieure du prisme.

col. iʹ 1ʹ.

5ʹ.

10ʹ.

10ʹ.

5ʹ.

1ʹ.

15ʹ.

20ʹ.

col. iiʹ


– 62 –

SH085491 est daté d’un jour inconnu d’Ulūlu, de l’éponymat de Nabû-nādin-[aḫi], gouverneur de Kar-[Salmanazar]. La comparaison croisée entre les prismes du type B, C, Kh et G permet une reconstitution partielle des lignes du texte. La translitération présentée ci-dessous est basée sur le texte publié dans RINAP 5/1 (prismes Asb3, Asb6, Asb7 et Asb8). Le texte en gras correspond au texte du SH085491. Les indices renvoient aux lignes de deux éditions récentes des textes d’Assurbanipal : RINAP 5/1 et BIWA. Les astérisques marquent les variantes par rapport au texte de base.

col.i’ 1ʹ. [ ] x x [ ] 2ʹ. [ DUM]U?.MEŠ-š[ú? ] 3ʹ. [ ]-DIŠ LU₂.NAR.MEŠ [ ] 4ʹ. [ ] mu-šá-ki-le-š[ú ] 5ʹ. [ um-ma-a]-ni ma-la ba-šu-u 6ʹ. [ ED]IN ú-še-ṣa-am-ma 7ʹ. [ šal-la-tiš] am-nu 8ʹ. [ GIŠ.ṣ]u-um-bi.MEŠ 9ʹ. [ ]⸢ú⸣-nu-ut ta-ha-zi* 10ʹ. [ ] šal-la-tiš am-nu 11ʹ. [ ] ANŠE.KUNGA.MEŠ 12ʹ. [ GU₄].MEŠ ṣe-e-ni 13ʹ. [ ]⸤šal⸥-la-tiš am-nu 14ʹ. [7.ix.3ʹ ; C.IX.3ʹ x šá K]UR.ELAM.MA.KI1) 15ʹ. [7.ix.4ʹ ; C.IX.4ʹ x iš-pu-r]a-áš-šú 16ʹ. [7.ix.5ʹ ; C.IX.5ʹ mdGIŠ.NU₁₁-MU]-GI.NA 17ʹ. [7.ix.6ʹ ; C.IX.6ʹ MÈ?-ia ina ú-ṣi] ⸢maḫ-ṣu⸣ 18ʹ. [7.ix.7ʹ ; C.IX.7ʹ la? iq-tu-ú nap-ša]t-su 19ʹ. [7.ix.8ʹ ; C.IX.8ʹ la-pa-an GIŠ.TUKUL <<MEŠ>> AN.ŠÁR la] pa-de-e 20ʹ. [7.ix.9ʹ ; C.IX.9ʹ a-na da-la-li ta-nit-ti AN.ŠÁR u d]15 EN.MEŠ-ia 21ʹ. [7.ix.10ʹ ; C.IX.10ʹ e-diš-ši-šú in-nab-tu ana] KUR.ELAM.MA.KI 22ʹ. [7.ix.11ʹ ; C.IX.11ʹ ; 8.x.1ʹ m?bar?-bu-ru DUMU-šú ul-tu URU].É-mim-bi-i

col. ii’ 1ʹ. [ ] x x [ ]

2ʹ. 3.viii.85 ; B.VIII.85h ; 6.x.19‴ ; C.X.114 ; 7.x.79ʹ ; CKh.X.110 DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ ma-la i[na MU.SAR-e an-né-e šaṭ-ru]2) 3ʹ. 3.viii.86 ; B.VIII.85i LUGAL-ut-ka lik-tar-[ra-bu li-iṣ-ṣu-ru BALA.MEŠ-ka] 4ʹ. 3.viii.87 ; 7.x.83ʹ ; CKh.X.112 ša MU.SAR-ú [ši-ṭir MU-ia] 5ʹ. 3.viii.88 ; B.VIII.91 ù <ši*-ṭir*> šu-me ⸢AD AD⸣-[ia? ib-ba-tú] 6ʹ. 3.viii.89 ; B.VIII.92 ; 8.x.1‴ ; G1C.Iʹ.1ʹ ina mim-ma ši-pir ni-kil-[ti ú-ḫal-la-qu]3) 7ʹ. 3.viii.90 ; B.VIII.93 ; 8.x.2‴ ; G1C.Iʹ.2ʹ it-ti MU.SAR-e [ši-ṭir MU-šú] 8ʹ. 8.x.3‴ ; G1C.Iʹ.3ʹ la i-šak-[ka-nu] 9ʹ. 3.viii.91 ; B.VIII.94 ; 8.x.4‴ ; G1C.Iʹ.4ʹ DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ š[á AN-e u KI-tim 10ʹ. B.VIII.95 ; 7.x.89ʹ ; CKh.X.117 ; 8.x.5‴ ; G1C.Iʹ.5ʹ LUGAL-us-su [lis-ki-pu] 11ʹ. 3.viii.92 ; B.VIII.96 ; 7.x.90ʹ ; CKh.X.118 ; 8.x.6‴ ; G1C.Iʹ.6ʹ ⸢MU⸣-⸢šú* NUMUN*-šú ina⸣ KUR [li-ḫal-li-qu ] 12ʹ. 7.x.91ʹ ; CKh.X.119 ; 8.x.7‴ ; G1C.Iʹ.7ʹ ITI.KIN dINNANA [UD.x.KAM₂] 13ʹ. 8.x.8‴ ; G1C.Iʹ.8ʹ lim-me* mdAG-AŠ-[PAP] 14ʹ. 7.x.92ʹ ; CKh.X.120 ; 8.x.9‴ ; G1C.Iʹ.9ʹLU₂.GAR.KUR KUR kar-m[dšùl-ma-nu-MAŠ]

[iʹ.2ʹ…] ses fils, […iʹ.3ʹ…]x les chanteurs, […iʹ.4ʹ…] ses engraisseurs (de bétail) […iʹ.5ʹ…artis]ans, autant qu’il y en avait, […iʹ.6ʹ…la ste]ppe, j’ai enlevé […iʹ.7ʹ…] je (les) ai comptés [comme butin]. [iʹ.8ʹ…] les chariots, [iʹ.9ʹ…] les équipements de guerre, [iʹ.10ʹ…] je (les) ai comptés comme butin. [iʹ.11ʹ…] les mulets, [iʹ.12ʹ…les bœufs], le petit bétail [iʹ.13ʹ…] je (les) ai comptés comme butin. [iʹ.14ʹ…] d’Élam, [iʹ.15ʹ…] il l’a envoyé [iʹ.16ʹ…Šamaš-šuma]-ukīn [iʹ.17ʹ…fut fra]ppé [iʹ.18ʹ…sa vi]e [ne? s’est pas achevée iʹ.19ʹ…par l’arme d’Ashur sans] pitié [iʹ.20ʹ pour chanter les louanges d’Ashur et] d’Ishtar, mes seigneurs, [iʹ.21ʹ il a fui tout seul en] Élam. [iʹ.22ʹ Barburu, son fils de la ville ] Bīt-Imbî […] […] iiʹ.2ʹ les grands dieux, [tous ceux évoqués dans cette inscription,] iiʹ.3ʹ qu’ils béniss[ent sans cesse ton pouvoir royal, qu’ils protègent ton règne]. iiʹ.4ʹ Celui, qui iiʹ.5ʹ [détruira] iiʹ.4ʹ l’inscription [(avec) mon nom inscrit] iiʹ.5ʹ ou le nom <inscrit> du père [de mon] père iiʹ.6ʹ ou de quelconque façon habile (la) fera disparaître, iiʹ.7ʹ (ou) par une inscription


– 63 –

[(avec) son nom inscrit] iiʹ.8ʹ qu’il ne (la) remplace ; iiʹ.9ʹ (s’il ose le faire,) les grands dieux du [ciel et de la terre] iiʹ.10ʹ [qu’ils éliminent] sa royale majesté ! iiʹ.11ʹ [Que] son nom (et) sa descendance (litt. « semence ») [disparaissent] du pays ! iiʹ.12ʹ (Dans) le mois d’Ulūlu, [xe jour], iiʹ.13ʹ l’éponymat de Nabû-nādin-[aḫi], iiʹ.13ʹ gouverneur de Kar-[Salmanazar].

La date du texte renvoie vers les prismes du type Kh ou G (Asb7 et Asb8 dans la nomenclature de RINAP 5/1). Cependant, la composition d’ensemble des lignes col.ii’.6ʹ-14ʹ répète la structure de l’épilogue du prisme G (Asb8) et pas celle du prisme Kh (Asb7). Les lignes col.ii.2ʹ-4ʹ permettent donc de reconstituer la partie disparue du texte du prisme G. La reconstitution peut se faire aussi par le biais de comparaison avec le prisme du type B (Asb3.viii.85-88). La comparaison de cette translitération avec celle de RINAP 5/1 suggère que le fragment du Louvre pourrait être jointif avec A 8159 (+) A 11870A de Chicago4).

On peut souligner ici que le texte du prisme porte la date du mois d’Ulūlu et que de cette façon, l’hypothèse de J. Novotny concernant la datation du prisme G se trouve confirmée5).

Les lignes 14ʹ-22ʹ de la première colonne répètent le contenu du fragment RINAP 5/1.7.ix.3ʹ-11ʹ (BIWA C.IX.3ʹ-11ʹ). Le fragment SH085491 confirme donc que ce texte faisait aussi partie du prisme G (Asb8). De plus, il permet d’ajouter dans ce prisme, avant col.x.3ʹ, le fragment complémentaire conservé dans la col.i’.1ʹ-13ʹ et inconnu jusque-là.

La structure du texte dans les lignes 1ʹ à 13ʹ ne permet de l’attacher à aucun passage des annales connu. On peut seulement identifier qu’il s’agit d’une énumération du butin pris durant la campagne et renvoyer pour comparaison vers le fragment Asb3.vi.20-27.

Remarques

l.i’.3ʹ le signe DIŠ, pourtant bien lisible, pourrait en fait faire partie d’un autre signe ;

l.i’.9ʹ ta-ha-zi remplace le signe MÈ habituel ;

l.i’.11ʹ vu le passage Asb3.vi.25-27 l’apparition d’ANŠE.KUNGA est étonnante avant ṣe-e-ni ;

l.ii’.5ʹ manque ši-ṭir ;

l.ii’.11ʹ l’état de conservation de la ligne est très mauvais. Le choix de la lecture du signe NUMUN a été opéré pour suivre la formule habituelle ;

l.ii’.12ʹ nous avons li-me au lieu de li-mu.

La correspondance entre les lignes des prismes du type B, C, Kh et G est présentée ci-dessous. En ce qui concerne les lignes col.i’.3ʹ-13ʹ, il s’agit seulement de la mise en évidence de la ressemblance du contenu (énumération du butin).

col. i’ RINAP.5/1.3 RINAP.5/1.6 RINAP.5/1.7 RINAP.5/1.8 = BIWA B = BIWA C = BIWA Kh = BIWA G

2ʹ 3.vi.20 = B.VI.27 6.vii.23 = C.VII.22 3ʹ 3.vi.21 = B.VI.28 6.vii.24 = C.VII.23 4ʹ 3.vi.23 = B.VI.32 6.vii.28 = C.VII.28 5ʹ 3.vi.24 = B.VI.33 6.vii.29 = C.VII.30 6ʹ 3.vi.25 = B.VI.34 6.vii.30 = C.VII.30-31 7ʹ 3.vi.25 = B.VI.34 6.vii.30 = C.VII.31 8ʹ 3.vi.3 = B.VI.10 6.vii.4 = C.VII.3 9ʹ 3.iii.73 = B.III.78 6.iv.65” = C.IV.87 10ʹ 3.vi.25 = B.VI.34 6.vii.30 = C.VII.31 11ʹ 3.vi.26 = B.VI.35 6.vii.31 = C.VII.32 12ʹ 3.vi.26 = B.VI.35 6.vii.31 = C.VII.32 13ʹ 3.vi.27 = B.VI.36 6.vii.32 = C.VII.33 14ʹ 7.ix.3ʹ = C.IX.3ʹ 15ʹ 7.ix.4ʹ = C.IX.4ʹ 16ʹ 7.ix.5ʹ = C.IX.5ʹ 17ʹ 7.ix.6ʹ = C.IX.6ʹ 18ʹ 7.ix.7ʹ = C.IX.7ʹ 19ʹ 7.ix.8ʹ = C.IX.8ʹ 20ʹ 7.ix.9ʹ = C.IX.9ʹ 21ʹ 7.ix.10ʹ = C.IX.10ʹ 22ʹ 7.ix.11ʹ = C.IX.11ʹ 8.x.1ʹ = C.IX.11ʹ


– 64 –

col.ii’

1ʹ 2ʹ 3.viii.85 = B.VIII.85h 6.x.19‴ = C.X.114 7.x.79ʹ = CKh.X.110 3ʹ 3.viii.86 = B.VIII.85i 4ʹ 3.viii.87 = B.VIII.91 7.x.83ʹ = CKh.X.112 5ʹ 3.viii.88 = B.VIII.91 6ʹ 3.viii.89 = B.VIII.92 8.x.1‴ = G1C.Iʹ.1ʹ 7ʹ 3.viii.90 = B.VIII.93 8.x.2‴ = G1C.Iʹ.2ʹ 8ʹ 3.viii.90 = B.VIII.93 8.x.3‴ = G1C.Iʹ.3ʹ 9ʹ 3.viii.91 = B.VIII.94 8.x.4‴ = G1C.Iʹ.4ʹ 10ʹ B.VIII.95 7.x.89ʹ = CKh.X.117 8.x.5‴ = G1C.Iʹ.5ʹ 11ʹ 3.viii.92 = B.VIII.96 7.x.90ʹ = CKh.X.118 8.x.6‴ = G1C.Iʹ.6ʹ 12ʹ 7.x.91ʹ = CKh.X.119 8.x.7‴ = G1C.Iʹ.7ʹ 13ʹ 7.x.91ʹ = CKh.X.119 8.x.8‴ = G1C.Iʹ.8ʹ 14ʹ 7.x.92ʹ = CKh.X.120 8.x.9‴ = G1C.Iʹ.9ʹ

Notes

1. Prisme Asb7 : RINAP 5/1 p. 160 ; prisme C : BIWA p. 159. 2. Prisme Asb3 : RINAP 5/1 p. 79 ; prisme B : BIWA p.117-118 ; prisme Asb7 : RINAP 5/1 p. 164-165 ;

prisme CKh : BIWA p. 165. 3. Prisme Asb8 : RINAP 5/1 p. 179 ; prisme G1C : BIWA p.120 et p.167 (date). 4. RINAP 5/1 p. 165 ex.1, la date est perdue dans les autres exemplaires. 5. SAOC 62, p. 133.

Bibliographie

BIWA Borger RYKLE, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften, Wiesbaden, 1996.

SAOC 62 NOVOTNY, Jamie, Classifying Assurbanipal’s Inscriptions : Prisms C, Kh (= CND), and G, dans Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago July 18-22, 2005, éd. R.D. BIGGS et al., Chicago, 2008, p. 127-135.

RINAP 5/1 NOVOTNY Jamie, Jeffers Joshua, The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC) and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria, Part 1, University Park, 2018.

En ligne

Asb3 : http://oracc.org/rinap/Q003702 Asb7 : http://oracc.org/rinap/Q003706 Asb6 : http://oracc.org/rinap/Q003705 Asb8 : http://oracc.org/rinap/Q003707

Jaroslaw MANIACZYK <[email protected]> Musée du Louvre (FRANCE)

30) Mouvements comptables dans l’Eanna d’Uruk — Dans son article de référence consacré aux filles de Nabuchodonosor II (Beaulieu 1998), P.-A. Beaulieu mentionne une offrande pieuse faite par Kaššaia selon le texte PTS 3238 dont il fournit l’édition (repris dans Beaulieu 2003, p. 184-188). Il mentionne également une référence à Kaššaia dans le texte à cette époque encore inédit de l’Oriental Institute de Chicago A. 3505, devenu, depuis OIP 122 n°120 (Weisberg 2003). Or la mise en relation des deux textes montre que l’un est la reprise de l’autre, qu’il permet de le compléter, et que tous deux documentent la manière dont l’Eanna d’Uruk enregistrait les offrandes qui lui étaient faites. On peut y adjoindre la grande tablette d’enregistrement YOS 17 360, elle aussi éditée par D. Weisberg (Weisberg 1980), qui apporte des informations supplémentaires sur les pratiques comptables.

Chronologiquement, c’est bien le texte PTS 3238, qui fut rédigé le premier, pour enregistrer une donation effectuée par Kaššaia, fille de Nabuchodonosor II, d’un ensemble de parures en or et pierres précieuses pour la déesse Nanaia, le 15-vii de l’an 15 (8 août 590) de Nabuchodonosor II. Il se présente ainsi (photo en ligne, site consulté le 16/01/2022 https://cdli.ucla.edu/search/search_results.php? SearchMode=Text&ObjectID=P471330):


– 65 –

[2 na₄ gú šá man-di-ti kù-gi] na-du-ú 2 pierres de collier qui sont serties (dans) une monture en or 2 [2 na₄ gi-iz-re-e-ti š]á man-di-ti kù-gi 2 pierres-gizirtu avec une monture d’or [2 an-ṣa-ba-a-ta kù]-gi 2 boucles d’oreille en or 4 [1 maš-šá-nu šá na₄] babbar-dil šá man-di-ti kù-gi 1 maššānu en agate, à monture d’or [1 un-qu kù-g]i 1 na₄ babbar-dil ina lìb-bi 1 anneau d’or avec 1 agate sertie 6 [1 na₄ ár-zal-lu] šá na₄ di-ig-lu na₄ babbar-dil 1 bijou arzallu (fait d’un) diglu en agate [1 na₄ kišib š]á na₄ babbar-dil šá man-di-ti kù-gi 1 sceau en agate à monture d’or 8 [4 na₄ tuk-p]a-a-ta 4 perles rondes [1 na₄ dig-lu] na₄ muš-šá-ru 1 joyau-diglu en pierre-muššaru 10 [2 na₄ ga-a]d-ru kù-gi 2 joyaux-gadru en or 1 mut-ta-bil-ti šá na₄ za-ku-ku-ú 1 récipient-muttabiltu en verre 12 pap ir-bi šá míkaš-šá-a dumu-mí lugal Total de la donation de Kaššaia, la fille du roi, a-na pi-šá-an-nu šá dna-na-a na-din qui a été remise à la corbeille-pišannu de Nanaia 14 iti šu u₄ 15-kam mu 15-kam Le 15 Du’uzu de l’an 15

l. 6 La mention du bijou arzallu peut être comparée avec celle de PTS 2175 (Nbk 31, Beaulieu 2003, p. 195) qui enregistre (ll. 8-11) 1 ar-za-la kù-gi šá ḫu-du-uš-šu šá gú kù-gi nu-úr-mu-ú na₄ babbar-dil šá dna-na-a « un ornement-arzallu en or pour la rénovation du pendentif en or (aux) grenades (et à) l’agate, de Nanaia ». Dans les textes néo-babyloniens arzallu désigne non pas une pierre mais une forme ornementale, cf. Oppenheim JNES 8 p. 178 note 17 et CAD A₂ p. 325a. L’arzallu est habituellement en or. Seul celui offert par Kaššaia est en pierre.

l. 13 Pour le pišannu de Nanaia, cf. Popova et Quillien, à paraître.

La mention de cet ensemble précieux fut ensuite recopiée dans le document récapitulatif OIP 122 n°120, rédigé au moins deux ans plus tard, qui comptabilise les entrées d’or dans le trésor de l’Eanna entre le mois de nisannu de l’an 13 et le mois d’addaru de l’an 17, soit cinq années pleines, et qui se présente ainsi:

Col. i [1 ma-na kù]-gi šá mu 13-k[am! ir-bi šá lugal] 1 mine d’or de l’an 13 : ve[rsement du roi( ?)] 2 57 gín kù-gi šu-re-e u ḫu-še-e 57 sicles d’or šurû et rouge brillant : ir-bi šá lú un-meš pap 1 ma-na 57 gín kù-gi versement de particuliers. Total : 1 mine et 57

sicles d’or, 4 ir-bi šá iti bár mu 13-kam dnà-níg-du-uri₃ versements du mois de nisannu de l’an 13 de

Nabuchodonosor, lugal ba-bi-lamki roi de Babylone. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 6 2 ma-na kù-gi ir-bi šá lugal 2 mines d’or, versement du roi; 7 gín 2-ta-šuII-meš kù-gi ir-bi 7 sicles 2/3 d’or, versement 8 šá Iden-mu-gar-un a Idnà-e-pir-la-a₄ de Bēl-šum-iškun, fils de Nabu-epir-la’a. pap 2 ma-na 7 gín 2-ta-šuII-meš kù-gi Total : 2 mines 7 sicles 2/3 d’or,

10 ir-bi šá iti bár mu 14-kam versements du mois de nisannu de l’an 14. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 7 gín kù-gi šá ina šuII Idutu-mu-uri₃ 7 sicles d’or, qui, des mains de Šamaš-šum-uṣur,

12 a Iabgal lú larsaki-ú-a na-šá-’a descendant d’Apkallu, habitant de Larsa, ont été amenés,

iti gu₄ u₄ 23-kam mu 14-kam dnà-níg-du-uri₃ le 23 ayyaru de l’an 14 de Nabuchodonosor, 14 lugal tin-tirki roi de Babylone. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1/2 ma-na 7 gín kù-gi ir-bi šá Iden-mu-gar-un 37 sicles d’or, versement de Bēl-šum-iškun,

16 a Idnà-e-pir-la-a₄ iti du₆ u₄ 9-kam fils de Nabu-epir-la’a, le 9 tašrītu mu 14-kam dnà-níg-du-uri₃ lugal tin-tirki de l’an 14 de Nabuchodonosor, roi de Babylone.

Col. ii 2 na₄ gú šá man-di-ti kù-gi [na-du-ú] 2 pierres de collier qui sont serties (dans) une monture en or

2 2 na₄ gi-iz-re-e-ti šá man-di-ti 2 pierres-gizirtu avec une monture (d’or) 2 an-ṣa-ba-a-ta kù-gi 2 boucles d’oreille en or 4 1 maš-šá-nu šá na₄ babbar-dil šá man-di-ti kù-gi x x 1 maššānu en agate, à monture d’or 1 un-qu kù-gi 1 na₄ babbar-dil ina lìb-bi 1 anneau d’or avec 1 agate sertie 6 1 na₄ ár-zal-lu šá na₄ dig-lu na₄ babbar-dil 1 bijou arzallu (fait d’un) diglu en agate [1 na₄ kišib š]á na₄ babbar-dil šá man-di-ti kù-gi 1 sceau en agate à monture d’or 8 [4 na₄ tuk-p]a-a-ta 4 perles rondes


– 66 –

[1 na₄ dig-lu] na₄ muš-šá-ru 1 joyau-diglu en pierre-muššaru 10 [2 na₄ ga-a]d-ru kù-gi 2 joyaux-gadru en or 1 mut-ta-bil-ti šá na₄ an-za-ku-ku-ú 1 récipient-muttabiltu en verre

12 pap ir-bi šá míkaš-šá-a dumu-mí lugal Total de la donation de Kaššaia, la fille du roi, a-na pi-šá-an-nu šá dna-na-a pour la corbeille-pišannu de Nanaia.

14 iti šu u₄ 15-kam mu 15-kam Le 15 du’uzu de l’an 15 (8 août 590) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Col. iii [x gín kù-gi ir-bi šá Iden-m]u-gar-un a Idnà-e-pir-la-a₄

[x sicles d’or, versement de Bel-šum-iškun, fils de Nabu-epir-la’a,

2 [iti NM u₄ o-kam] mu 15-kam [Le o du mois NM] de l’an 15 (= 590/589). ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– [x gín kù-gi ki-lá o mu-ka]r-ri-šá-nu [x sicles d’or, poids de x bols mu]karrišu, 4 [ir-bi šá lugal iti NM u₄ o-ka]m mu 15-kam [versement du roi, le o du mois NM] de l’an 15 (=

590/589). ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– [x gín kù-gi ki-lá o mu-ka]r-ri-šá-nu ir-bi šá lugal [x sicles d’or, poids de x bols mu]karrišu,

versement du roi, 6 {x gín 3-ta-4-tú-meš kù-gi] ir-bi šá un-me [ x sicles 3/4 d’or], versement de particuliers. pa[p x gín 3-ta-4-tú]-meš kù-gi [Total: x sicles 3/4] d’or 8 i[r-bi šá iti NM mu] 16-kam [Le o du mois NM] de l’an 16 (= 589/588). ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– (suite cassée…) (suite cassée…)

Col. iv 2 gín ḫal-lu-ru kù-gi šá ul-tu e-pi-re-e 2 sicles 1/10 d’or qui, d’une pépite (originelle) 2 na-šá-a 1 gín 3-ta 4-tú-meš gi-ru-u ont été tirés (et) 1 sicle 3/4 1/24, ir-bi šá lú un-me pap 3 gín 3-ta 4-tú-meš kù-gi versement de particuliers. Total: 3 sicles 3/4 d’or. 4 iti ab u₄ 26-kam mu 17-kam Le 26 du mois de ṭebêtu de l’an 17 (= 588/587). ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2 gín ḫal-lu-ru kù-gi šá ta sahar-há šá é pa-pa-ḫi n[a-

šá-a] 2 sicles 1/10 d’or qui, d’une pépite (originelle) de la cella, ont été tirés (et)

6 3 gín 3-ta 4-tú-meš gi-ru-ú kù-gi <ir>-bi šá u[n-meš] 3 sicles 3/4 1/24 d’or, versement de particuliers. pap 5 gín 3-ta-4-tú-meš mi-šil bit-qa kù-gi Total: 5 sicles 3/4 1/16 d’or. 8 iti zíz u₄ 14-kam mu 17-kam Le 14 du mois de šabatu de l’an 17. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– iti še mu 17-kam nu sar Mois d’addaru de l’an 17: rien d’inscrit.

10 4 gín 3-ta 4-tú-meš kù-gi šu-re-e u ḫu-še-e 4 sicles 3/4 d’or šurû et rouge brillant [……………………………]-ti [……… – illisible – (…fin cassée…) (…fin cassée…)

Le texte enregistre et récapitule les donations effectuées par les autorités ou par des particuliers, entre les années 13 et 17 du règne de Nabuchodonosor II. Parmi les donateurs réguliers figure le roi, qui offre au temple une mine d’or au début de l’an 13, deux mines au début de l’an 14, puis des quantités qui restent inconnues, sous forme de vaisselle précieuse. Mais on trouve aussi en l’an 14 et en l’an 15, à trois reprises Bel-šum-iškun, fils de Nabu-epir-la’a, père du futur roi Nériglissar, l’époux de Kaššaia, et celle-ci, dont la donation à l’été 590, reprend, avec quelques variantes, le billet de PTS 3238.

Cela signifie que chacune des entrées réparties entre les lignes des colonnes I à IV est la reproduction d’un billet comptable unique, gardé en réserve avant d’être recopié. On note aussi (col. i 11-14) la donation faite par un habitant de Larsa. Cette dernière entrée est reproduite telle quelle dans le troisième document étudié ici, YOS 17 360, col. i 14-17 (Weisberg 1980). Enfin, pendant la période Nabuchodonosor II 13 à 17, on enregistre également au moins quatre versements anonymes, effectués par des particuliers (nīšû). Si les apports de ces derniers sont de l’ordre de quelques sicles, les donations royales ou celles de Bel-šum-iškun sont beaucoup plus conséquentes.

Le propos du texte est clair: il s’agit de compiler, en un document unique, les entrées d’or brut pour le temple enregistrées au titre des offrandes pieuses, sur une période de plusieurs années. Celle de Kaššaia est particulière dans ce contexte car il s’agit de bijoux déjà montés en or, en pierres précieuses (surtout des agates rubannées) et d’un récipient en verre. De même, le roi, par deux fois au moins, offre de la vaisselle cultuelle (des bols mukarrišu en or). On peut penser qu’on a là un document justificatif des ressources en


– 67 –

métal précieux mises à la disposition des artisans du temple ou rangées directement dans le trésor. Si PTS 3238 documentait l’activité du service de réception — la conciergerie administrative ? — du temple, OIP 122 n° 120 serait plutôt le produit de la comptabilité du Trésor de l’Eanna lui-même.

Il reste un troisième niveau, qui est celui de la comptabilité générale du temple, et qui a produit un document spectaculaire à 6 colonnes, YOS 17 n°360, comptabilisant les mouvements de métaux précieux — surtout or, mais aussi argent —, auxquels les administrateurs de l’Eanna et leurs agents ont procédé au cours de l’année 14 de Nabuchodonosor II. Comme pour le texte OIP 122 n°120, il s’agit de la compilation de tous les billets d’entrée et de sortie rédigées par le service de réception au cours de l’année 14, plus exactement entre les mois ii et x de l’année 14. On y retrouve en effet, comme on vient de le voir, le billet concernant l’apport de Šamaš-šum-uṣur de Larsa (YOS 17 360 col. i 14-17 = OIP 122 n°120 col. i 11-14). On note que le scribe responsable de cette compilation n’a pas éprouvé le besoin de classer dans l’ordre chronologique les billets qu’il recopiait, puisque les mois se suivent de manière non ordonnée. Il s’agissait avant tout de garder la trace globale des mouvements de métaux précieux intervenus au cours de l’année 14: c’est l’unité de temps qui est ici le facteur justificatif de la production du document. Celui-ci est trop complexe pour être analysé en détail ici et mérite une étude sui generis. Mais il illustre l’activité dans l’Eanna d’un service de comptabilité qui n’est pas le même que celui qui est installé à l’entrée du temple et qui produit les billets individuels, ni que le service du Trésor en charge des offrandes en or.

Au final, on a ici un bon exemple de la complexité du mode de gestion du temple d’Uruk sous le règne de Nabuchodonosor II, en même temps que des formes diverses (billet individuel de réception, liste spécialisée par thème ou par unité de temps) que prenait la mise par écrit des flux de produits, plus ou moins précieux, qui transitaient par le temple.

Bibliographie citée

BEAULIEU 1998 = P.-A. BEAULIEU, « Ba’u-asitu and Kaššaya, Daughters of Nebuchadnezzar II », OrNS p. 173-201.

BEAULIEU 2003 = P.-A. BEAULIEU, The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period, Leiden-Boston, 2003.

POPOVA & QUILLIEN à paraître = O.V. POPOVA et L. QUILLIEN, « Fabrication and Ritual Use of the Pišannu-Jewellery Box in Babylonian Temples during the First Millenium BC. », Mesopotamia 2022.

WEISBERG 1980 = D.B. WEISBERG, Texts from the Time of Nebuchadnezzar, YOS XVII, 1980, New Haven. WEISBERG 2003 = D.B. WEISBERG, Neo-Babylonian Texts in the Oriental Institute Collection, University of

Chicago, OIP 122, Chicago 2003.

Francis JOANNÈS <[email protected]> 39 rue Scheffer F-75116 Paris (FRANCE)

31) Babylonian Miscellanea 1. The date of construction of the Euprates Canal (Nār-Puratti) — The only royal inscription dated to the time of Nabopolassar which concerns civil work in the vicinity of Sippar is Langdon, Nbp, no. 2, now RINBE 1, Nabopolassar 14 (http://oracc.org/ribo/Q005372/.Q005373/.)1) This short inscription of only 31 lines written in two columns deserves special attention because, on the one hand, it is an example of royal propaganda at the highest level, and, moreover, it may be the earliest example of royal economic activity in the Neo-Babylonian period.

The inscription, written on a clay cylinder, begins with the presentation of the king as a pious ruler, praying to Marduk and Nabû, who ordered him to look after the cities and sanctuaries located in them. This terse introduction is followed by an explanation of the reason for the commencement of construction work.

ì-nu-mi-šu-um zimbir.ki ma-ḫa-zi ṣí-i-ri na-ra-am dutu u da-a íd.buranun is-si-šu-ma a-na qú-ud-duš be-lu-ti-šu-nu me-e i-re-e-qu a-na sa-a-bu (col. I, 12-16)

“At that time, Sippar, lofty city, beloved by Šamaš and Aya, because the Euphrates had shifted some distance from it (Sippar), and the water was too far to draw to maintain the purity of their majesty”.


– 68 –

The royal decision is not motivated by the desire to satisfy the vital and economic needs of the city dwellers, but by cultic needs of the city gods. The brief description of the construction of the canal in col. II again precedes a picture of the ruler’s devotion to the gods (ašri šaḫti pāliḫ ilī).

ia-a-ti íd.buranun a-na zimbir.ki lu ú-ša-aḫ-ra-am-ma me-e nu-úḫ-ši el-lu-tim a-na dutu en-ia lu ú-ki-in ki-bi-ir íd šu-a-ti i-na esir.ud.du.a u a-gur-ri lu ú-ša-ar-ši-id-ma a-na dutu en-ia kar šu-ul-mi-im lu ú-um-mi-id (col. II, 3-14)

“I had the Euphrates dug out as far as to Sippar and I established abundant pure water for Šamaš, my lord; I strengthened the bank of that canal with kiln-fired bricks laid in bitumen and I provided for Šamaš, my lord with a safe embankment”.

The canal was constructed according to the best standards: its banks were strengthened with kiln-fired bricks (agurru) laid in bitumen and an embankment (kāru), probably within the city of Sippar, was built.

The new canal was named the “Euphrates canal” (Nār-Puratti) while later, already in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, another name, Nār-Šamāš, was in use (Jursa 2010, 324). Until now, the earliest recognised attestation of the canal comes from the early years of Nebuchadnezzar (Jursa, ibid.); therefore, the text published below is extremely important, because it allows us to determine more precisely the date of the canal’s construction and the time of creation of the inscription commemorating this fact. The copy of ten out of fourteen lines of an administrative document BM 49293 was published already in 1910 by Pinches,2) a fact not noted by modern scholars. The subject of the text is divided into two parts, the first, published by Pinches, concerns the delivery of building materials, the second (ll. 11-14), of which the first line is extremely badly preserved, presumably concerns payment for a cow; both took place in the same day, month, and year, i.e. on the twenty-first of Ulūlu, in the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar.

The first entry which is the subject of our interest concerns delivery in two instalments of wooden material called šadipu, (presumably twigs) which seldom appears in texts.3) According to lines 7-8, a huge number of 7,300 šadipus was stored “in the storehouse, which is on the Euphrates Canal” (bīt makkūri ša Nār-Puratti). This is highly important information, as it means that in the middle of sixteenth year of Nabopolassar the canal had been functioning for some time, as a storehouse had already been built on its bank.

Since, in the light of BM 49239, “the Euphrates canal” existed already in 610 BC, the inscription commemorating its construction must be dated close to this time, as such a brief inscription written on commonly accessible materials as clay must have been composed shortly after completion of the canal, or maybe already after the completion of its main part. The purpose of wooden material in BM 49293 is not known, but it cannot be excluded that it might be destined for the construction of an earthen wall called a mušanītu for which “Faschine” (as described by Jursa 1995, 188) were used.

BM 49293 sheds new light on the early years of the Neo-Babylonian empire, as it shows that Nabopolassar, the new ruler of the rebuilt state, based his authority on three different elements. First and most obvious was the presentation of the ruler as a pious, humble worshiper of the gods, striving for the satisfaction of all their needs, especially caring for temples as places of cultic ceremonies. Although Nabopolassar did not avoid mentioning his military achievements, which he shared with the Medes, in his inscriptions, they are not the central part of his royal inscriptions, as such mentions are short and discreet, and did not present the king as, for example, the commander-in-chief of the victorious army. Although the discussed royal inscription explains the decision to build the Euphrates Canal only as caring for the gods, it is beyond doubt that it was beneficial for members of the local communities and the economy. There is no doubt that such an achievement strengthened the king’s authority among the local society.

The material resources needed to conduct the task came presumably from the spoils of the looted cities of Assyria (especially Nineveh and Kalhu). The date of BM 49239 suggests that the main part of the Euphrates canal was completed before the final destruction of the Assyrian Empire in 609 BC.

BM 49239 (82-3-23, 230) 5.3 x 3.55 cm 21.6.16Nbp

Obv. 1. 3 lim 3 me 40 Rev. 7. ina é níg.ga 2. giššá-di-pi maḫ-ru-[t]u 8. šá ina ⸢ugu⸣ íd ud.kib.nunki


– 69 –

3. 3 lim 9 me 60 9. iti.kin u₄.21.kam 4. giššá-di-pi ár-ku-tú 10. mu.16.kam md⸢ag⸣-a-ùru 5. pap 7 lim 3 me giššá-di-[pi] 11. ⸢6?⸣ gín ⸢kù⸣.babbar ⸢x x x x x x ⸣ L.e. 6. ár-⸢ku⸣-[tú] u maḫ-ru-tu L.h.e. 12. 1 gu₄.ab muš-šá-a-a ina igi 13. mdu-muq iti.kin u₄.21.kam 14. mu.16.kam mdag-a-ùru

Translation

1-10. 3340 twigs of earlier delivery, 3960 of later delivery, total 7300 of earlier and later deliveries of twigs (stored) in the storehouse on the Euphrates canal; month Ulūlu, twenty-first day, sixteenth year of Nabopolassar.

11-14. ⸢6?⸣ shekels of silver, …one cow which Uššaya (gave to) Dummuqu; month Ulūlu, twenty-first day, sixteenth year of Nabopolassar.

Notes 1. Translations are based on this edition. 2. Pinches 1910, 62, no. 3. The tablet includes two entries, however, Pinches copied only the first one. Line 11,

the first line of the second entry, is so badly preserved that I have abandoned the attempt to present its transliteration; as Pinches suggested, the second entry concerns a cow and is dated on the same day, month, and year as the first entry.

3. An additional unpublished text in which a quantity of šadipu is related to two different building materials will be published elsewhere.

Bibliography

JURSA, M. (1995), Die Landwirtschaft in Sippar in neubabylonischer Zeit (AfO, Beih, 25), Wien. JURSA, M. et al. (2010), Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the first Millennium BC. Economic

Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth, AOAT 377, Münster.

PINCHES, T. G. (1910), An Outline of Assyrian Grammar, London.

Stefan ZAWADZKI <[email protected]> ul. Szeherezady 21, 60-195 Poznań (POLAND)

32) Babylonian Miscellanea 2. An additional text from the Balīḫû archive* — In a freshly published article concerning the Balīḫû archive, or more precisely Marduk-bēlšunu/Nabû-balassu-iqbi//Balīḫû, Cecilia and Hackl published 18 texts belonging to this archive.1) They noted that according to Jursa 2005a, 121, nineteen texts were known to him. To the texts edited by Cecilia and Hackl two additional texts should be added. The first is BM 64721 published by Sandowicz 2019, no. 49 with her extensive commentary on Marduk-bēlšunu’s business transactions and his relations with other families (Sandowicz 2019, 183f.; the text and commentary are not mentioned in Cecilia and Hackl’s article). The second text identified by me is published below.2)

BM 79735 (89-10-14, 284)3) 4.6 x 3.5 cm 24.1.29Dar, Sippar-Anunītu

1. 16 gín kù.babbar babbar-ú ina dul-lu šá uru⸢da⸣-[x (x)] 2. mdamar.utu-mu-mu a-šú šá mdamar.utu-pap 3. a mdkaskal.kurú ina šuii mbašá-a a-šú šá 4. md⸢amar⸣.utu-mu-mu a m⸢kaskal⸣kur⸢ú⸣ 5. a-na men-šú-nu a-šú šá mni-din-tu₄ 6. a mdkaskal.kurú ma-ḫi-ir 7. 1en-a-ta-a₄ šá-ṭa-ri 8. il-qu-ú Edge 9. lúmu-kin-nu Rev. 10. mdùg.ga-ia a-šú šá mdutu-šeš.meš-mu 11. a m.lúsanga dutu mdutu-mu a-šú šá 12. mlú-dag mdag-bul-liṭ-su a-šú šá 13. mden-da a mmi-ṣir-a-a 14. lúšid mki-dutu-tin a-šú šá mkur-ban-ni-dšú


– 70 –

15. a mden-e-ṭir ud.kib.nunki-da-nu-ni-tu₄ 16. iti.bár u₄.24.kam mu.29.k[am] L. e. 17. mda-ri-ia-muš 18. lugal eki lugal kur.kur.meš

Notes L. 3. The sign kaskal is preceded by two Winkelhaken; it cannot be excluded that the scribe began to write kur

and, after he recognized his error, wrote kaskal without erasing the previously written wedges. L. 6. On the use of maḫir as active, see Jursa 2005a, 46f; cf. also Jankowić and Weszeli 2014. L. 9. At the end of the line there are traces of something which inside is badly preserved and impossible to identify

because of its small size, but it is doubtful that there are seal stamps. They are not noted in Altavilla and Walker 2009.

L. 15. Note the atypical writing of ṭir (one vertical is missing and the lower horizontal is over to the right).

Translation

Bēlšunu, son Nidintu of the Balīḫû family received 16 shekels of white silver concerning work at the settlement ⸢Da⸣-[…] (from) Marduk-šum-iddin, son of Marduk-nāṣir of the Balīḫû family from (= by the hands of) Iqīšaya, son of Marduk-šum-iddin. They each took a copy of the document. Witnesses: Ṭābīya, son of Šamaš-aḫḫē-iddin, descendant of the Šangû-Šamaš, Šamaš-iddin, son of Amēl-Nabû, Nabû-bullissu, son of Bēl-ilē’i, descendant of Miṣiraya, and the scribe, Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, son of Kurbanni-Marduk, descendant of Bēl-ēṭir. Sippar-Anunītu, month Nisannu, twenty-fourth day, twenty-ninth year of Darius, king of Babylon, king of Lands.

Commentary This is the first document in the Balīḫû archive on an intra-family transaction. The parties are

Marduk-šum-iddin, son of Marduk-nāṣir, his son Iqīšaya4) and Marduk-bēlšunu, son of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi, whose name is written in an abbreviated form and his father’s name with second name, i.e. Bēlšunu, son of Nidintu5). Marduk-šum-iddin, son of Marduk-nāṣir is known from four texts dated to the period 24-34Dar. The earliest is BM 42601+ = BR 213f. ([x].6.24 Dar) from Sippar where he is first witness, which concerns the quite large sum of 52 kurru of dates, an assessed rent from the palm garden at Tīl-Gubbi owed to Bulluṭu’a, son of Rēmūt-ili and his wife Amat-Ninlil by Šamaš-nāṣir, son of Mušibši-Marduk of the Šangû-Sippar family (see BR, 92). The next is BM 77855 = Bertin 2491 (21.6.32Dar), a promissory note written at Tīl-Gubbi, in which Marduk-šum-iddin and Bēl-ittannu, son of Lābāši of the Iddin-Ea family are obliged to pay dates, an assessed rent to Iqīša-Marduk, son of Gimil-Šamaš of the Ea-eppeš-ili family. Another two texts are dated to the thirty-fourth year of Darius. In BM 42348 (BR 148f.) written probably at Sippar in Ulūlu, the same year, Marduk-šum-iddin is seventh out of fourteen witnesses. It concerns an agreement between Bēl-uballiṭ, son of Bēl-mušibši of the Balāṭu family with his wife Eṭirtu, daughter of Aplaya of the Balīḫû family; the husband gave her his slaves as equivalent for the part of her dowry he had used and additionally the income of his prebend as the pledge. Marduk-šum-iddin is the only representative of the Balīḫû family. The last document is Peek 12 = MR 165 (24.6.34Dar) written in Sippar, in which Marduk-šum-iddin is the third witness; it concerns a debt note for four minas twenty shekels of silver to be delivered to Bēl-bullissu, son of Marduk-rēmanni of the Ṣāḫit-ginê family, as his father must have paid already the debt. From this relatively small dossier, it appears that Marduk-šum-iddin of the Balīḫû family had quite close ties with many influential families (Ṣāḫit-ginê, Šangû-Šamaš, Ea-eppeš-ili) and in the case of the Balāṭu family, he was related to them.

The 16 shekels of silver were destined for some work at a settlement beginning with Da-[…], however, the interpretation of text causes serious problems because of the lack of a broader context and the presence of only one verb in Stative, although three individual members of the Balīḫû family are engaged. For these reasons, the function of each of them in the document is uncertain. It seems to me that lines 5-6 are crucial for resolving the question. According to line 5, the silver is for (ana) Bēlšunu, son of Nidintu, one of the most important people in the family.6) The silver is received from (ina qāt) Iqīšaya, son of Marduk-šum-iddin, who presumably acted in the name of his father to transfer the silver. The reason for


– 71 –

such a decision is not specified in the text; maybe Marduk-šum-iddin worked on behalf of Marduk-bēlšunu, but because he was unable to complete (the entire?) task he decided (in agreement with Marduk-bēlšunu) to transfer the silver (or the rest of silver) via Iqišāya, who acted in such a scenario as the middleman. As the document was written in Sippar-Anunītu, it seems probable that Marduk-bēlšunu lived there, while Marduk-šum-iddin and his son Iqīšaya were living or staying temporarily in the Da[…] settlement, and for this reason it was necessary to use his son. If this interpretation is valid, it means that a copy of the tablet was taken by Iqīšaya and Marduk-bēlšunu. Another possibility cannot be excluded, i.e. that the capital did not come from Marduk-šum-iddin but from another person or institution, and that only in the face of inability to meet the obligation did Marduk-šum-iddin decide to transfer the silver to the most influential person in the family. However, in such a situation, we would expect more information in our text. Be that as it may, the fact that transaction took place between the members of the same family indicates the maintenance of strong relationships within the family.

Transactions between members of the same family are not uncommon. An example of such a transaction is provided by a satellite archive of Rabȃ-ša-Ninurta (Zawadzki 2009, 274-78); such a situation is also observed in Egibi, one of the most influential Babylonian families, where, after the death of Itti-Marduk-balātu, son of Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin, his main successor Marduk-nāṣir-apli and his brothers cooperated over many years, delaying the division of the inheritance.7)

This is the only text of Balīḫû archive written in Sippar-Anunītu, but the city appears in two texts published by Cecilia and Hackl. According to no. 3 Bēlšunu/Nabû-balāssu-iqbi//Balīḫû,8) gave 30 kurru of barley and 19 shekels of silver for business venture to Šamaš-uballiṭ, and Bēl-zēri, son of Bēl-upaḫḫir, but the profits were to be divided equally among three shareholders, the third was the slave of Marduk-bēlšunu. However, only Šamaš-uballiṭ and Bēl-zēri assumed the warranty for silver and barley. It is not clear why Nabû-ina-Esagila-lūmur, the slave of Marduk-bēlšunu, was free from the warranty for capital. Hackl’s interpretation (p. 216) that the slave did not act independently, i.e. he acted on behalf of his master, is possible, but another possibility may come into play, that his “share” to the business venture was that he only managed the business.9) It is important that half of the barley was to be returned to Bēlšunu at Sippar-Anunītu, which suggests close ties of Bēlšunu with the city. In no. 6, Bēlšunu subleased part of the baker’s, brewer’s and butcher’s prebends of Šamaš, the baker’s and brewer’s prebends of Gula and the butcher’s prebend of Anunītu of Sippar-Anunītu, i.e. the last case confirms his relations with this city. BM 79735, written in Sippar-Anunītu is another example of ties of Bēlšunu with Sippar-Anunītu.

Since BM 79735 was concluded between the members of the Balīḫû family, all the witnesses were thus related to that family. The first witness is Ṭābīya, son of Šamaš-aḫḫē-iddin, descendant of the Šangû-Šamaš family. He is known only from three documents (Bongenaar 1997, 458-59), of which two are available in Bertin’s copies. In BM 77927 = Bertin 2187 Ṭābīya, together with Bēl-uballiṭ, son of Hašdaya, descendant of the Mādidu(?) family, signed a contract in which they obliged themselves to perform the butcher’s prebend of Šamaš. In BM 74644 = Bertin 2690 Ṭābīya is only the third witness in a contract concerning the butcher’s and baker’s prebends of Adad. In BM 74679 (25.2.29Dar), concerning the purchase of a field, he is the penultimate, seventh witness.10) The position of Ṭābīya in comparison with other members of Šangû-Šamaš family seems rather low. This is also indicated by the fact that Šamaš-aḫḫē-iddin appears only in the filiation of Ṭābīya, his son. They are not related to any of the four branches of the family reconstructed by Bongenaar (Bongenaar 1997, 460-463). It cannot be excluded that because of the low position of Ṭābīya, fRe’indu, the daughter of Ṭābīya in the wet-nursing contract, no. 13 in Ceclia and Hackl’s edition, (dated 6.12b.32Dar) might be the daughter of Ṭābīya, the member of Šangû-Šamaš family, who agreed to be nurse to Marduk-šum-iddin, son of Bēlšunu, descendant of the Nidintu family. This might result from the relation of Ṭābīya with the Balīḫû family established about three years earlier, at the very beginning of the twenty-ninth year of Darius (BM 79735). It is difficult to say if Marduk-šum-iddin, son of Bēlšunu received his name from his older cousin, or not. Both Nabû-bulissu, son of Bēl-lē’i of the Miṣiraya family,11) and the scribe Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu, son of Kurbanni-Marduk, descendant of the Bēl-ēṭir12) family, are related to the Balīḫû family, but nothing more can be said as it is the first mention of these persons in the Balīḫû archive.


– 72 –

Additional remarks. Note also that the following texts edited by Cecilia and Hackl have been copied by Bertin: No. 7. BM 74522 = Bertin 2531 No.16. BM 74557 = Bertin 2734 No 18. BM 74549 = Bertin 2735

Remarks to text editions

No. 1. BM 61484: 12. The name is clearly mdutu*-mu a-šú šá/mlib-luṭ a lúsanga dbad (not mdamar.utu-mu). He appears in many texts from Sippar from the time of Darius I. In BM 61484 = no. 1 (2.6.12Dar) he is the first witness, the sixth in BM 42389 = MR 169-170: 18 (24.8.19Dar,) and the third in BM 42523+ = MR 192-93: 16 (24.10.[x]Dar). In other texts, he is the scribe: BM 42504+ = MR 190: 23 (1.2.15Dar); VS 4, 145 = MR 263-4 (28.3.17Dar); CT 4, 21: 20 =


– 73 –

BM 78391 (5.1.19Dar), MR 106 = BM 74591: 15 (6.11.20Dar); CT 4, 32: 22 = BM 78646 (13.11.20Dar); BM 43810 = MR 246 (28.[x].28Dar).

In l. 16 read mden-it-tan-nu a-šú šá/mdu[tu*]-tiniṭ a mšá-na-ši-šú. (not md⸢30⸣). He is present in the above-mentioned CT 4, 21: 9 as warrantor and in CT 4, 32: 3 as purchaser of a slave girl and as a witness in VS 4, 135 = MR 262-63 (17 (19.8.11Dar, fourth witness)) and in BM 42622 = MR 217, rev. 3ʹ (nth witness). Presumably the same person is witness in CTMMA 3, 91: 18 (14.3.1[7]Dar, third witness); BM 42329 = BR 136: 18 (14.3.17Dar, third witness), MR 127: 36 (15.12.25Dar, twentieth among 26 witnesses, written in Babylon, but related to Sippar), however, in these texts the family name is missing.

No. 4 BM 61123: 4, add at the end of line: giš*.šub*.ba* At the end of l. 6 add: mi*-šil* u₄*-mu* At the end of line 13, read: it-ta*-⸢an*⸣-<nu>-ú. The sign following ta is clearly not nu as it ends with one vertical wedge. It is corrupted writing for ittannu.

No. 10 BM 79283: 3 kaskal.kur-ú*

No. 18. BM 74549: 11-12 for mden-re-man-ni/a-šú šá mmu-še-<zi>-ib-dšú, read mden-re-man-ni/a-šú šá mmu-ši-ib-<ši>- dšú, see BR, 32 and MR, 373-4 (link to texts) and p. 455 (link to discussion).

Notes * I wish to thank M. Weszeli, M. Sandowicz and R. Tarasewicz for reading my text and their valuable

suggestions. 1. Cecilia and Hackl 2021. 2. While preparing this text, I noticed that C. Wunsch was first who recognised that BM 79735 belongs to the

Balīḫû archive, see Wunsch 2003/2004, 237; later mentioned in MR, p. 144 and 326. It is unclear whether among the texts recognized by Jursa was that published by Sandowicz or that published here.

3. Published with the kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. 4. Iqīšaya appears here for the first time. Note that this branch is not noted in the family tree by Bongenaar 1997,

469 and in Cecilia and Hackl 2021, 212. 5. Established by Waerzeggers 2000/2001, 28-29, and note 67, where she demonstrates that three persons in the

family replaced the name Nabû-balāssu-iqbi with Nidintu. 6. Present as main person in all texts published by Cecilia and Hackl (except for the badly preserved no. 16). 7. Cf. for example Wunsch, 2000, 16-19, and in many texts in her vol. B. 8. Note the proper reconstruction of l. 3 in transliteration, but incorrect translation, where instead of Bēlšunu, son

of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi there is an unknown Bēlšunu, son of Nabû-uballiṭ. 9. Typ A of the ḫarrānu contract in Lanz 1976, cf. Jursa 2005b, 217-18: “…Geschäftsführung einem Dritten,

normalerweise einem Sklaven, anvertraut ist.” The text discussed here presents yet another possibility: one investor, two debtors obliged to invest that money in the company, not running the business, but responsible for the loan, and a third person running the business, dependent on the investor (see Jursa 2010, 57-58, and the second graph on p. 58).

10. The father’s name is written with missing meš, i.e. mdutu-šeš.<meš>-mu (my reading is based on excellent photo of the tablet in the collection on line of the British Museum). For short description of the content, see BR, 122-123 and Bongenaar 1997, who discussed prosopography (for details, see George and Bongenaar 2002, 125).

11. He is known as the fifth witness in BM 63284 =MR 180: 21 (9.[x]2Xer) in ēpišanūtu contrat between fInbaya, daughter of Lūṣi-ana-nūr of Šangû-Ištar-Bābili family, who leased her prebends to Aḫušunu, son of Ubalissu-Marduk of Šangû-Šamaš family and Iddinnaya, son of Nidintu of Rabȃ-ša-Ninurta family.

12. He is known as scribe in two private documents from Sippar, cf. Bongenaar 1997, pp. 487f.

Bibliography

ALTAVILLA, S. – WALKER, C.B.F. (2009), Late Babylonian Seal Impressions on Tablets in the British Museum, Part 1: Sippar. Messina.

BONGENAAR, A. C.V.M (1997), The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prospography, Istanbul.

BR - JURSA, M (1999), Das Archiv des Bēl-rēmanni, Istanbul. CECILIA, L. and HACKL, J. (2021), Minor Archive from First-Millennium BCE Babylonia, Part II: The Balīḫû

Archive, JCS 73, 211-245. GEORGE, A.R. and BONGENAAR, A.C.V.M. (2002), Tablets from Sippar: Supplementary bibliography etc. for

Leichty, Catalogues VI-VIII, u to the end of 2000, Or. N.S., vol. 71, 55-156. JANKOVIĆ, B., WESZELI, M. (2014), Neues zu Verwendung von maḫir im Eanna-Archiv – eine Anomalie,?

in: Z. Csabai (ed.), Studies in Economic and Social History of the Ancient Near East in Memory of Péter Vargyas, Budapest, 671-681.


– 74 –

JURSA, M. (2005a), Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents. Typology, Contents and Archives, Münster.

JURSA, M. (2005b), Das Archiv von Bēl-eṭēri-Šamaš, in: H.D. BAKER, M. JURSA, (eds.), Approaching the Babylonian Economy. Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1-3 July 2004, Münster, 197-268.

JURSA, M. (2010), Business Companies in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC: Structure, Economic Strategies, Social Setting, in: M. WISSA (ed.), The Knowledge Economy and Technological Capabilities: Egypt, The Near East and the Mediterranean 2nd millennium B.C. – 1st millennium A.D. Proceedings of a Conference Held at the Maison de la Chimie Paris, France 9 – 10 December 2005, Barcelona, 53-68.

LANZ, H. (1976), Die neubabylonischen ḫarrȃnu-Geschäftsunternehmen, Berlin. MR – WAERZEGGERS, C. (2014), Marduk-rēmanni. Local Networks and Imperial Politics in Achaemenid

Babylonia, Leuven-Paris-Walpole, MA. SANDOWICZ, M. (2019), Neo-Babylonian Dispute Documents in the British Museum, Münster. WAERZEGGERS, C. (2000/2001), Het archief van Marduk-rēmanni. Studie van de familie Ṣāḫit-ginê in

Nieuwbabylonisch Sippar (548-484 v. Chr.), PhD. thesis, University of Ghent. WUNSCH, C. (2000), Das Egibi-Archiv, I-II. Die Felder und Gärten, Groningen. WUNSCH, C. (2003/2004), Findelkinder und Adoption nach neubabylonischen Quellen, AfO 50, 172-244. ZAWADZKI, S. (2009), The Archive of the Rabȃ-ša-Ninurta Family from Babylon. Business and Family

relations as revealed by BM 55482, in: DREWNOWSKA O (ed.), Here & There Across the Ancient Near East, Warszawa, 271-281.

Stefan ZAWADZKI <[email protected]>

33) Babylonian Miscellanea 3. Blacksmithing as a family profession — The document presented below deserves attention for several reasons. Among the apprenticeship contracts published a few years ago by Johannes Hackl,1) no-one deals with blacksmiths. Admittedly, BM 60944 is not a contract, but a text made for internal use by the temple administration, i.e. a type of memorandum. The text reveals how the relationship between the temple’s dependent and the temple functioned.

BM 60944 (82-9-18, 920)

5.5 x 4.1 cm 2.7.9Nbn

Obv. 1. m⸢ki⸣-i-dutu du[mu?-šú šá PN šá ] 2. ⸢mdbu⸣-ne-ne-lugal-ù[ru dumu-šú lú…] 3. dutu-šeš-mu dumu-šú ⸢x⸣ [(…)] 4. mdbu-ne-ne-dù dumu-šú lúkud 5. pap 3 lúdumu.meš šá mki-i-dutu 6. lúsimug-[ú-t]u ú-lam-mad 7. ina mu.an.n[a 6] gín kù.babbar Edge 8. ⸢man-da-at⸣-[tu₄] ⸢a-na⸣ 9. dutu i-nam-din Rev. 10. iti.du₆ u₄.2.kam mu.9.kam 11. mdag-i lugal tin.tirki 12. 5 gin kù.babbar ta iti.bár mu.9.kam 13. man-da-at-tu₄ mki-i-dutu 14. it-ta-din 1 gín kù.babbar 15. [ina] igi-šú ri-e-ḫi

Notes For l. 3, see below.

Translation

1-11. Kī-Šamaš, s[on of PN, who] teach the smith profession Bunene-šar-uṣ[ur,…], Šamaš-aḫ-iddin, the…] (and) Bunene-ibni, the crippled, total three sons of Kī-Šamaš - he will pay per year [six] shekels of silver as the mandattu obligation to (the temple) of Šamaš. Month Ulūlu, second day, ninth year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon.

12-14. Kī-Šamaš has paid five shekels of silver as the mandattu-obligation for the period from month Nisannu, ninth year; one shekel is outstanding [on] him.


– 75 –

The blacksmith Kī-Šamaš appears two times in CT 56, 87 IV, 17, 30 dated to 29.11.15Nbk in the ration list, first with another blacksmith and later together with twelve workers in Tekrit (Tagritain).2) However, it is doubtful if Kī-Šamaš from CT 56, 87 is identical with Kī-Šamaš from BM 60944 because a long period of 43 years passed from the fifteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (590 BC) to the ninth year of Nabonidus (547 BC). Assuming that if Kī-Šamaš was at least fifteen years old in 590 BC, by 547 he would have been 68 years old. Although older people are known,3) it seems too late to begin teaching his sons in his profession. Additionally, apprenticeship began rather at the young age of only 10 or so. If that were the case, Kī-Šamaš would have become a father in old age, which is rather unlikely. Although the idea that sons inherited their profession from their fathers is commonly accepted, BM 60944 is – according to my knowledge – the first such clear statement.

Out of three sons of Kī-Šamaš, two: Šamaš-aḫ-iddin and Bunene-šar-uṣur, appear here for the first time. Two smiths with the name of Bunene-ibni, are known (Bongenaar 1997, 373), however, without a father’s name, and as their activity ended in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, presumably neither is the same Bunene-ibni, son of Kī-Šamaš from the discussed text.

Age or health? The sequence in which the sons are named: Bunene-šar-uṣur, Šamaš-aḫ-iddin and Bunene-ibni

suggests that they are listed according to their age, from the oldest to the youngest, but it cannot be excluded that Bunene-ibni is mentioned last because of his health problems, as he is described with the term lúkud. Such writing seems to be an abbreviation of lúkud.kud.(du), the Akkadian ḫummuru translated as “shrunken, shriveled, crippled” (CAD Ḫ 235). According to Šumma Izbu (CT 27, 14: 32), cited in CAD, this defect was formed already in the mother’s womb. Lexical texts suggest that the malfunction concerned a man’s leg, but the text from Nuzi shows that the disease also affected the legs of horses, which were therefore unsuitable for harness.

Because of damage on the right side of the obverse of the tablet, it is impossible to say whether the defect concerned only the youngest brother, or all three; in modern times there are known cases of leg defects of a single family member, but also of multiple family members. In l. 2 the term describing Bunene-šar-uṣur is totally damaged, while in l. 3 the reading of last partly preserved sign, presumably the term describing Šamaš-aḫ-iddin is highly uncertain.


– 76 –

Terms for age or health Few terms describing physical condition or age are known.4) Thus, an adult person was referred to

as itbaru, a term never preceded by the determinative; sometimes the different term lú = amēlu was used. Both terms describe an able-bodied adult person. Other terms describe the age of the person: ša šizbi, “sucking, or breast-feeding child;” dumu.1/2/3/4.kam, “child of one/two/three/four years old,” not obliged to work; rabû, ‘adolescent,’ i.e. an infant outgrown child” (Kessler 2002), however, some texts suggest a different meaning of the term. In these texts concerning workers, in the heading in first column is the term gal, while in the second tur is used, i.e. the first denoted a fully able-bodied person,5) while the second, Akkadian ṣeḫru, “young,” i.e. a person too young to fulfil the work norm.6) The term lúšibu, abbreviated to lúši (MacGinnis 2003), “old man,” expressed advanced age and probably also the inability to perform the standard of work of his profession.

Apart from ḫummuru, in economic and administrative texts, other terms denoting physical disability are known. BM 78886,7) the long list of Hindanaeans mentions one ḫummuru and one sâˀu, translated as “wheeze, or wince,” the last term denoted probably a person with pulmonary problems. The third term is lúmulāla, which “described some physical impairment associated with advanced age, e.g. lamed or sick, or that it designated a status that came from age”, translated as “feeble” (MacGinnis 2003, 99). In BM 60944: 3 the term referring to child or elderly person is naturally excluded, and the most probable reading is g[al] or t[ur], i.e. fully able-bodied or young person, not able to perform the working norm of an adult man.

2. Typology of document Undoubtedly, the person who decided that the document should be composed, or who wrote it (not

mentioned by name, situation typical for administrative document) was an official of the Ebabbar temple administration, because Kī-Šamaš is mentioned in 3Ps Sing as the one who asked the temple for permission to teach his sons his blacksmith’s profession.8) This means that Kī-Šamaš could not decide himself about his sons’ future and needed the consent of the temple administration. This allows us to state that Kī-Šamaš and his sons (by inheritance of the legal status of their parents) belonged to the temple’s dependent people, i.e. širku. However, because Kī-Šamaš was able to pay mandattu (mandattu) for his sons, presumably he also worked independently and paid mandattu for himself, too, but this was regulated in a different, unknown to us, document.

Kī-Šamaš received a positive answer to his request on condition that he paid mandattu, a payment that was supposed to compensate any expected profits from the work of his sons lost to the temple in the period of teaching. Such a charge was paid by a craftsman or his sub-tenant, an example of which is BM 67433 (Zawadzki 1997)9). In this case Šamaš-ittiya, the prebendary baker of the Ebabbar temple was hired by Nabû-eṭit-napšāti, son of Ea-kāṣir, descendant of the Ša-nāšišu family, presumably living in Babylon, where the document was written, who paid the Ebabbar temple ten shekels of silver as a mandattu. In the second document (Cyr 119) the slave baker is given as a pledge, and the creditor and debtor agreed that the debtor will not pay interest while the creditor will not pay a mandattu for the work of the pledged baker, i.e. the mandattu was equivalent to interest. As the most typical interest rate in a loan contract was one shekel per month, the mandattu was presumably the same, i.e. ca. 12 shekels per year.9)

BM 60944 reveals yet another situation: mandattu is paid in advance for income potentially lost by the temple for the period of apprenticeship. In the discussed text, the charge was six shekels of silver for a period of six months, from Nisannu to the month preceding the date of composition of the document at the very beginning of seventh month. Kī-Šamaš had already paid five shekels, while he still owed one shekel of silver. This means that the annual charge was twelve shekels, i.e., 4 shekels per year for each son. The charge was undoubtedly related to the sons, because the document did not change their father’s duties in any way. The sum paid by the father in BM 60944 is significantly lower in comparison to ten shekels paid to the temple for a skilled baker (BM 67433 in Zawadzki 1997), but the sons did not yet have the professional qualifications that were to be acquired in their father’s workshop; moreover, at least one of them was a disabled person. It should be stressed that the agreement was very favorable for the temple in comparison to the apprenticeship contracts. In many such contracts the temple participated in the costs of living (food and clothes) of the apprentice, at least during the first years of learning.10) In this case, the temple neither participated in the costs of learning, nor did it have to pay to the master for teaching. It is


– 77 –

very difficult to answer the question about the circumstances of such a settlement, but it cannot be ruled out that the temple took advantage of two circumstances: (1) first and foremost, it was the father who wished to teach his sons, securing in this way better material and social prospects for his sons, (2) the temple’s income would be much higher than if they remained unskilled. Undoubtedly, the material and social positions of a person disabled from birth who had acquired professional skills was much better, despite his legal status remaining unchanged. BM 60944 is the second case demonstrating that the ḫummuru disease did not interfere in the performance of a hard job if it did not require changing the place of residence.

Notes 1. Hackl 2007-2010. For studies, see Hackl 2010, and Kedar 2014 (both with earlier literature). 2. Mentioned by Bongenaar 1997, 375, although he did not exclude that two smiths of the same name might be

mentioned there. 3. For lifespan and active period of occupation, see Gehlken 2005, 98-108. 4. For the terms, see MacGinnis 2003, 97-99. 5. BM 61263 and in CT 56, 586, and gal.meš to be translated rabūte in BM 73261 (MacGinnis 2004), in which

it denotes adult persons. 6. See Zawadzki 2018, 427 and n. 69, contrary to MacGinnis 2004, who thinks that tur = ṣeḫru denoted “children.” 7. See Zawadzki 2021. 8. San Nicolò 1950, 6 emphasized that the father usually taught his son(s) his profession. 9. As far as I know, such a meaning of the term mandattu has not been considered in the research conducted so

far. 10. For a different meaning of mandattu, i.e. compensation paid by the master if he has not taught the

apprenticeship within the agreed period and scope, see Petschow 1980-83, Hackl 2010 and in texts edited by Hackl 2007-2010.

11. See previous note, Petschow and Hackl.

Bibliography

BONGENAAR, A. C.V.M (1997), The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and Its Prospography, Istanbul.

HACKL, J. (2007-2010), Neue spätbabylonische Lehrverträge aus dem British Museum und der Yale Babylonian Collection, AfO 52, 77-97.

HACKL, J. (2010), Apprenticeship contracts, in M. JURSA et al., Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC. Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth, Münster, 700-725.

KEDAR, S. (2014), Apprenticeship in the Neo-Bablonia Period: A Study of Bargaining Power, in: L. MARTI (ed.), La famille dans le Proche-Orient ancien: réalités. symbolismes, et images. Proceedings of the 55th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Paris, 6-9 July 2009, Winona Lake, Indiana.

KESSLER, K-H. (2002), Zu lúrabû, NABU 2002/53. MACGINNIS, J. (2003), A Corvée Gang from the Time of Cyrus, ZA 93, 88-115. MACGINNIS, J. (2004), Servants of the Sun-God: Numbering the dependents of the Neo-Babylonian Ebabbara,

BaM 35, pp. 27–38. PETSCHOW, H.P.H, Lehrverträge, RLA 6 (1980-1983), 556-570. SAN NICOLÒ, M. (1950), Der neubabylonische Lahrevertrag in rechtsvergleichender Betrachtung, München. ZAWADZKI, S. (1997), A Contribution to the Understanding širkūtu in the Light of a Text from the Ebabbar

Archive, AoF 24, 226-230. ZAWADZKI, S. (2021), The Hindanaeans in the Neo-Babylonian Empire, AfO 54, 379-405.


34) Babylonian Miscellanea 4. The year of death of Itti-Marduk-balāṭup one more — In NABU 2010/35, I argued that Itti-Marduk-balātu (IMB), son of Nabû-aḫḫē-iddin (NAI) of the Egibi family died in the first year of Darius (521 BC), i.e. later than was proposed before. However, I missed one additional document which is in my file in transliteration which confirms my conclusion. The document, BM 77363, copied by Bertin, no. 1913 (not seen by me),1) is dated to the eighth of Ayaru, first year of Darius. Only four lines of the obverse have survived, but the entire seven lines of the reverse. It concerns silver, consisting of various parts of qalû and nuḫḫutu quality,2) which belonged to IMB, son of NA[I of the Egibi family] and which was owed by Itti-Nabû-balātu, whose father and family names are not preserved. The


– 78 –

value of the document lies primarily in the fact that, despite the damage to the obverse, there is no doubt that it mentions IMB, son of NAI of the Egibi family as the owner of the silver. In this situation the date is particularly important as it confirms the fact that IMB was alive on 8 Ayaru, the first year of Darius, i.e. on 21 April, 522 BC according to the Julian calendar. Notes

1. Included in “Table 1: Chronology of Babylonia in 522-521 B.C.E.” in Bloch 2015, 12. 2. For a discussion of both terms, see Jursa 2010, 475-479.

Bibliography

BLOCH, Y. (2015), The Contribution of Babylonian Tablets in the Collection of David Sofer to the Chronology of the Revolts against Darius I, AoF 42, 1-14.

JURSA, M. et al. (2010), Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the first Millennium BC. Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth, AOAT 377, Münster.


35) Babylonian Miscellanea 5. Tablets and envelopes in the Neo-Babylonian periods: some notes on the margin of diplomatics in the first millennium BC — In a series of studies devoted to diplomatics in the Neo- and Late-Babylonian periods, published in the newest AfO 54, the result of a conference held in Vienna in 2016, researchers pointed to the relationship between the format of the tablets, types of documents and time of their drafting, identifiable both in the early and late periods. In each period: early (from late Assyrian time to about thirtieth year of Nebuchadnezzar II’s reign) and late (from about thirtieth year of Nebuchadnezzar II till the beginning of the fifth century BC) deviations are observed; among the texts that usually were written on portrait tablets, there are texts written on landscape tablets and vice versa. The purpose of the following considerations is to indicate one of the possible reasons for such a situation which has not been considered so far.

It seems that a deviation from the standard in each period may be explained by the organisation of the work of scribes writing tablets. Already in 1987,1) I drew attention to this issue, and the essence might be summarised in the question: did the scribe who began the work day prepare each tablet immediately before writing it, or on the contrary, did he prepare a number of tablets suitable for the tablets he usually drafted during the day, and a few more tablets in another format.2) This organisation of work is supported by the production and use tablets of the proper shape for the proper content, as well as by a practical reason, because the scribe avoided repeated interruptions in writing tablets in order to make the next tablet, cleaning his hands and maybe changing his place of work, and so on. Such organisation of work explains the imprints of fabric visible on a number of tablets, intended for a later time and wrapped in wet cloth. The idea considered by Levavi (idem, p. 74) that fabric imprints may appear during the transport of the tablets to their place of destination seems unlikely. There is no rationale for wrapping written tablets in wet cloth; an imprint left by dry fabric on a finished tablet is doubtful. While some letter orders had to be delivered to the recipient as soon as possible, an imprint of the fabric pattern from dry cloth, even on a not fully dried tablet seems unlikely in the hot Mesopotamian climate. Besides, some tablets were written for the internal administration and rather did not leave the institution where they were written.

The preparation of more tablets at the beginning of the day is suggested not only by the imprints of cloth, but also the situation encountered probably by every scholar reading the tablets, especially those of an administrative nature. The cuneiform signs on some tablets - despite their good condition - are extremely shallow, and some wedges are partly or completely absent, suggesting that the tablet was too dry to impress the wedges deeper. Reverse situations are known, where the tablet was too wet, probably prepared just before writing the text.3)

The idea that some texts were written on tablets which were too dry is supported by the observation of errors. Although the scribe noticed his error(s) and attempted to remove it/them, in some cases, the attempt to remove the faulty signs has failed and the errors are preserved.4)


– 79 –

The assumption that the scribe prepared a larger number of tablets at the very beginning of the day may explain not only the presence of imprints of canvas on the tablets, but also cases of deviation from fitting the shape of the tablets to the content of tablet. If, at the end of the day, there were no tablets appropriate for a given category of document, but there was a tablet of another shape, the scribe did not hesitate to deviate from the standard. Such a situation probably occurred in the case of the tablets from 29.8.20Nbp (AfO 54, 141) discussed by R. Tarasewicz, where five texts are written on portrait tablets and one on a landscape tablet; the last one against the accepted format. Presumably the scribe had already used all the available portrait tablets, but he had a landscape tablet and used it to complete his daily task.5) A similar situation can be observed in the case of the correspondence analysed by Y. Levavi. From Uruk, from the early period, come 164 letters written on portrait tablets and 23 on landscape tablets, i.e. the proportion is over 7 (precisely 7.1) portrait tablets to one landscape tablet.6) For the same early period from Sippar, we have 23 portrait tablets and 2 landscape tablets, i.e. there are 11.5 portraits tablets to one landscape tablet. This small number of landscape tablets for writing letters may result from the lack of the tablets of accepted shape at the end of the day, and the use of whatever was at hand.

The situation is similar in the case of letters from the late period. From Uruk, 164 portrait letters are known, but only 4 landscape letters, i.e., the ratio is 41: 1. This may mean that in Uruk, in that period, only in exceptional circumstances did scribes use a tablet with the incorrect shape. In Sippar, the situation is less clear, because there are 43 portrait and 8 landscape tablets, i.e., the proportion is 5.1: 1, respectively, i.e. Sipparean scribes used landscape tablets to write letters more often. Perhaps this is because in Sippar, a much smaller center than Uruk, the same scribes wrote both letters as well as other types of documents and prepared tablets of both formats. If the portrait tablets accepted for letters were all used, the scribe wrote the letter on a landscape tablet.

As for the envelopes, it seems that one can agree with Levavi and Walker that only a small number of tablets were placed in envelopes. At this point, attention should be paid to some special cases where we have both the tablet and a well-preserved envelope, i.e. BM 66261 and BM 66251 A, respectively.7) The first two lines on the envelope are the summary, followed by two additional lines (an additional entry) and seal stamps – all missing on the inner tablet.8) This means that the scribe used the incorrect tablet for the content that was to be included on it. We might have expected that the scribe, instead of writing the missing lines on the envelope, would have made a new, larger tablet, written the entire contents on it and destroyed the previous tablet. The reasons why the scribe decided to act in such a surprising way may be different, e.g. needing to leave the scriptorium - the place of his work, the late hour (dusk falling), and so on. It is important to note that if the work on the tablet had not been completed, the seal owner would have been present the following day. The scribe chose a different, undoubtedly highly atypical, and imperfect solution: he made the envelope and placed the text and seal on it for which there was no place on the inner tablet.9) Such a procedure can be recognised as further proof that tablets prepared earlier did not always correspond, not only to the accepted shape of tablet for given category of document, but also to the content the scribe was to write on the tablet.

Notes 1. Zawadzki 1987. 2. The problem was noted by Levavi in his text in AfO 54, but without attempting to point out the consequences

of the situation. This does not apply to royal inscriptions, because the good arrangement of the final tablet suggests that the texts were first written on a wax (or clay) tablet, and finally copied from it.

3. See CT 56, 523: “clay very soft”. Here might be mentioned the unpublished document BM 79732, including a long list of people, presumably members of collegium, but its nature cannot be recognized as the first line is compressed so tightly that it is impossible to read it. The text is not dated but the presence of Bulṭa, son of Marduk-erība, the Großpächter (lúrab giš.bán) makes it certain that it was written in the period between the fourth and seventeenth year of Darius I (Jursa 1995, 106-107).

4. For examples, Zawadzki 1987, 18-19. However, it seems to me now that some texts with errors discussed by me in 1987 might be not original tablets, but copies made by apprentices at a later time. This presumably concerns tablets mentioning the well-known Nergal-šar-bullit, the qīpu Ebabbar, and Mušēzib-Marduk, šangû Sippar. It is improbable that the errors in their names were made by scribes living in the time when they held office.


– 80 –

5. Only in Type B texts are they all written on landscape tablets, i.e. the scribe(s) chose this format consciously. The number of texts in Type A written on landscape format is so small that it might be explained in the way suggested here.

6. However, there is a problem with such a statistic in the situation where the letters are not dated, because it cannot be excluded that the known landscape tablets come from different days than the portrait tablets.

7. Published by Jursa 2004, 190-192. I wonder if what is identified by Jursa as obverse and reverse should not be inverted, as in Jursa’s edition the dating is at the very end of the obverse instead of the end of the reverse, a highly atypical situation. The suggested sequence is also a little strange, because the first line would be written on the upper edge. Again, such a situation happened only rarely.

8. For the seal, see Altavilla and Walker 2009, 108, no. 503 (the same stamp repeated three times, owner unidentified).

9. The presence of a seal stamp on an envelope might be interpreted as confirmation of the contents written on the internal tablet, as well as on the envelope, by the owner of the seal (kind suggestion of R. Tarasewicz).

Bibliography

ALTAVILLA, S. – WALKER, C.B.F. (2009), Late Babylonian Seal Impressions on Tablets in the British Museum, Part 1: Sippar, Messina.

JURSA, M. (1995), Die Landwirtschaft in Sippar in neubabylonischer Zeit, Wien. JURSA, M. (2004), Accounting in the Neo-Babylonian Institutional Archives: Structure, Usage, Implications,

in: M. HUDSON, C. WUNSCH (eds), Creating Economic Order. Record-Keeping, Standardization, and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East. A Colloquium Held at the British Museum, Bethesda, Maryland, 145-198.

LEVAVI, Y. and SCHMIDL, M., Diplomatics of the Neo-Babylonian and Early Achaemenid Letters, AfO 54 (2021) 72-87.

TARASEWICZ, R., Non-Tabulated and Tabulated Inventory Tablets from Sippar, AfO 54 (2021) 139-153. ZAWADZKI, S. Errors in the Neo-Babylonian Business and Administrative Documents and Problem of their

Deletion, in: M. MEJOR, M. POPKO and B. SKŁADANEK (eds), Papers on Asia Past and Present, Orientalia Varsoviensia 1, Warszawa 1987, 15-21.


36) Babylonian Miscellanea 6. The Sun-God Tablet and its(?) clay impressions — The Sun God Tablet and two clay tablets with impressions found together in a box have been the subject of many studies, with the last important discussion by Irving Finkel and Alexandra Fletcher.1) The central idea of the authors is that the squeezes on the clay tablets were not imprinted from the relief from the Sun-God Tablet but from the cylinder seal of Shamash. The second conclusion concerns the time when the Sun God Tablet and clay tablets were made, which the authors date to the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina. The following comments are basically limited to these two points, although others are certainly worth discussing.

Let us first address the first point. While dating the time of production of the Sun-God tablet to a time commemorating the fortunate find that made it possible to restore the original statue of Šamaš destroyed by the Suteans is not in doubt,2) the idea that clay tablets were made at the same time, but from the seal of Šamaš, is, in my opinion, not convincing. It is worth paying attention to an issue omitted in the authors’ considerations, namely that the set of robes listed on the Sun-God Tablet for six lubuštu ceremonies yearly for Shamash, Aya and Bunene (col. V 38-VI 8) differs significantly from the content on the clay tablet BM 91002, copied from asumittu-stone, where the sets of robes are much richer.3) If the unpreserved, or not yet found asumittu-stone comes from the time of Nabû-apla-iddina - an idea that I share with the authors - it means that, after some time, when the Sun-God tablet was composed, the temple was able to obtain much larger sets of robes from Nabû-apla-iddina,4) at least for Šamaš, and the original set listed in the Sun-God tablet has expired. This is clearly indicated by the lack of two main robes, šeri'tu and karbītu from the Sun-God Tablet in other texts outside this tablet.5) Although, like the authors,6) I assume that asumittu means the original, probably stone tablet, made in the time of Nabû-apla-iddina, the fact that clay tablets with impressions were found together, does not mean that they all were deposited in the times of Nabû-apla-iddina. Making a copy in a situation where the original of the asumittu existed, does not seem justified in the absence of a threat. However, the main argument against the idea that the clay tablets were produced and placed in the box already in the time of Nabû-apla-iddina is the low quality of squeeze on


– 81 –

BM 91001, presumably preceded by the first, unsuccessful attempt, the low quality of clay on BM 91002 and several mistakes in the inscription on its reverse.7) All this speaks for the idea that both clay tablets were made in circumstances of real danger, and as such - as I argue - this occurred in 625 BC.8) The authors are entirely right that the box was found later during the reconstruction of the Ebabbar temple at the beginning of Nabonidus’s reign and placed in a new place (maybe close to the place where it was kept earlier) and it remained there until its discovery at the end of the 19th century.

The second idea of the authors is that the similarity of impressions on the clay tablets and on the Sun-God tablet result from the use of the same theme and composition seen, or to put it better, that they are modelled on the Sun-God Tablet. According to them, the impressions on the clay tablets are smaller, they lack crenelation of the edges, and the waves on the bottom, as seen on Sun-God Tablet (Finkel and Fletcher 2016, 234-237). However, when comparing the Sun-God Tablet with two clay tablets from London made by the authors,9) one important issue escaped their attention, i.e. the perfect overlap of the cuneiform labels on the clay tablets with those on the relief of the Sun God Tablet. This fact contradicts the authors’ thesis, because even nowadays, with the use of modern sophisticated technology unavailable in ancient times, such a placement of the inscriptions on a cylindrical seal so that it perfectly covers the inscriptions on the Sun-God Tablet would be a serious achievement. Contrary to the authors’ opinion, the observed differences between the relief on the Sun-God Tablet and impression on the clay tablets may have arisen when the squeeze was removed from the Sun-God Tablet. The lack of a border, visible on the Sun-God Tablet but missing on the clay tablets, is also not a good argument. The person imprinting the reliefs on the clay tablets was interested not in the artistic and theological message of which the frame was part, but in preparing a squeeze of good quality with its central part, i.e. the statue of the god Šamaš, for future generations. The traces of waves visible on BM 91002 (and less clearly on BM 91001, and best preserved on Istanbul 459 (see photo on p. 233, Fig. 17)) have probably been smoothed and cut off, maybe because of their poor quality, or are missing because of damage. All this speaks in favour of the impressions being made not from the postulated cylinder seal of Šamaš, but from a relief on the Sun God Tablet.

A certain technological problem concerns the way of producing squeezes on clay tablets, especially on BM 91001. According to the authors, after making the squeeze, the producer turned the tablet over and then strengthened its reverse, applying clay (different from the clay from which the tablet has been made) pressing it with the thumb (p. 232 under “The Broken Impression”). This assumption seems highly questionable for two reasons. The authors assume that the impression was created by pressing the cylindrical seal of Shamash on the clay. It is difficult to imagine a technique other than pressing on the formed clay lying on a hard, even surface. In such a situation the pressure could not result in unevenness of the opposite side (reverse). The clay, where pressed becomes more compact and it may move slightly outwards. Unevenness on the reverse might arise only if the imprint were made “in the air”, i.e., holding a clay tablet in one hand and rolling the seal with the other - a rather strange technique. Adding clay on the reverse makes sense only if we assume that the first attempt at making the relief was unsuccessful, possibly because the clay was too soft (and it does not matter whether the cylindrical seal of Shamash was imprinted - as the authors assume - or if clay was pressed onto the relief of the Sun-God Tablet). What appears to be the reverse today, in my opinion, was originally the obverse. The addition of clay and pressing it with the thumb after the impression was already made could lead to its damage. For this reason, it seems to me that the clay was added before or during the second attempt of making the squeeze, to thicken the clay in places where it was thin after the first unsuccessful attempt at making the relief imprint. The flat surface of the reverse of BM 91002 suggests that, while making an imprint of the relief, a board or a stone slab was probably used to take the pressure from above to obtain a surface for writing the text from the original asumittu.

Notes 1. Finkel and Fletcher 2016. 2. In, or shortly before the 31st year of Nabû-apla-iddina, as such date appears in the Sun-God Tablet. 3. Discussed by Woods 2004, 37-38. 4. The Stone-Tablet was written in his 31st year (859 BC), while Nabû-apla-iddin ruled for 33 years (877-855

BC), i.e. his new decision must be dated to the penultimate (856 BC) or ultimate (855 BC) year of his rule.


– 82 –

5. In Woods’ opinion (Woods 2004, 38) the copy on BM 91002 “serve(s) as an NB amendment to SGT’s lubuštu offerings.”

6. Zawadzki 2006, 141 and n. 441. 7. Zawadzki 2006, 145 and 152 with correction concerning reading of iz-ḫi in Zawadzki 2013, no. 175, pp. 162-

163. 8. Zawadzki 2006, pp. 147-150. 9. Finkel and Fletcher 2016, 238, Fig. 19; differences are seen only when you use the digital, not paper version.

Bibliography

FINKEL, I. F. and FLETCHER, A. (2016), Thinking outside the Box: The Case of the Sun-God Tablet and the Cruciform Monument, BASOR 375, 215-248.

WOODS, Ch. E. (2004), The Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina revisited, JCS 56, 23-103. ZAWADZKI, S. (2006), Garments of the Gods. Studies on the Textile Industry and the Pantheon of Sippar

according to the Texts from the Ebabbar Archive, Fribourg and Göttingen. ZAWADZKI, S. (2013), Garments of the Gods: Texts, Fribourg and Göttingen.


37) Arameo-Akkadica III1) — Four lexemes, viz. three substantives and one adjective (Nos. 1-3 and 4 respectively), are discussed below. All of them are recorded only in NB/LB, except for No. 3 which also occurs in NA. All of them are recorded in Aramaic, except for the first one whose precursor has homonyms in Aramaic. Its recognizable survival in Palestinian Arabic was in all probability not borrowed directly from the Akkadian recorded forerunner, but from a hypothetical, yet highly plausible, Aramaic form.

1. banūra denotes a ceramic or tin lamp of a cylindrical shape in Palestinian Arabic, where it is recorded both among villagers (west of Jerusalem) and bedouins (in the Negev). Halayqa (2014: 147-148:456 with lit.) is of the opinion that it originates from Heb. mnwrh “lamp”. In my opinion, a more plausible origin is Aram. *byt nwr’ which is the equivalent of Akkad. bīt nūri “lamp” (CAD N/2: 351). This Akkadian term is recorded only in NB/LB, i.e. it does not predate the 1st millennium BC. This compound is synonymous with earlier nūru (from OB onwards, CAD N/2: 350, s.v. nūru A, 2,2) which is metonymic seeing that it basically denotes “light” (the lexeme has undergone simplification and narrowing of its denotation). The 1st component, viz. byt (/bayt/), has shifted to by- (/bê/) > /bā-/ in Eastern Aramaic and b(ē)- in Western Aramaic. The determinate form (i.e. with -nwr’) has been generalized in Eastern Aramaic. The modern Palestinian lexeme is extant in a region with a Western Aramaic substrate; its ba- and final a conform to a continuant of Western Aramaic (notably CPA) determinate form of a compound *byt nwr’ > *bynwr’ with shortening of the unstressed /bê-/ as the stress was on the last syllable (with -ā) and subsequently on the penultimate (with -ū-); the resulting short /be-/ has become /ba-/ as expected in Arabic. In the same manner, --ā has been shortened to -a in Arabic. It may be envisaged that the denotation of byt nwr’ > by nwr’ as “lamp” in Eastern Aramaic was suppressed by the introduction of a Persian loanword, namely JBA and Mand. šrg’ (Sokoloff 2020: 1159a). On the other hand, there is good reason for thinking that it was retained in certain regions of speakers of Western Aramaic (not in Anti-Lebanon where šrōga denotes “lamp”, Arnold 2019: 756a, s.v.) seeing that JPA ššyt’ does not denote “lamp, lantern” (contra von Soden 1977: 195), but perhaps “wick” (Sokoloff 2017: 656b, s.v. ššy, det. ššyt’ < ʿššyt’, MHeb. ʿššyt). Its precursor, which is rendered by NB/LB šašītu, denotes “a metal part or an accessory for a lamp, lantern” as is clear from the sequence bīt nūri kalla siparri (u) šá-ši-i-tu₄ siparri šá bīt nūri “a lamp, a bronze stand, and a bronze part of or an accessory for a lamp, lantern” (CAD Š/1: 172b).

Aramaic compounds resembling the forerunner of banūra, which acquired different denotations, viz. JBA by nwr’ “place heated by a fire” and “(Zoroastrian) fire temple” (Sokoloff 2020: 154a), OSyr. byt nwr’ “furnace” and JPA byt nhwr ”place to admit light” (translating BHeb. ṣhr, Sokoloff 2017: 77a), are of no relevance here.

2. par(ā)qu - pa-raq (of pa-raq-šú “his > ‘her’ p.”) is recorded in the deed BM 96175 after rittu “hand” and lētu “cheek”, all referring to a female slave’s body parts on which the name of Mār-bīti-iqbi, the father of her seller Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti, is written (i.e. tattooed). The seller inherited the female slave from


– 83 –

his father. The deed may refer to a component of a belated dowry gift (see Waerzeggers 2010: 374:1.2.2 in fine).

BM 96175 - beige to brown, horizontally oriented, 65x50x24mm.; Borsippa, 9.V.6 Dar. I = 516 BC; Ilīya A archive (dossier of Ša-nāšīšu)

1. md+AG-SUR-ZImeš A-šú šá mdA.É-iq-bi 2. DUMU mma-qar-tu₄ ina hu-ud ŠÀbi-šú 3. fsi-lim-dba-ú lúqal-lat-su 4. šá rit-ta-šú šá le-e-ti ù 5. pa-raq-šú a-na MU šá mdA.É-iq-bi AD-šú 6. šá-ṭar? (text ’)-⸢tu₄? a-na 1 MAŠ MA.NA 5 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR 7. BABBAR-ú šá ina 1 GÍN pit-qa nu-uh-hu-tu 8. a-na md+AG-mu-še-<ti>-iq-UD.DA DUMU-šú 9. šá mdAMAR.UTU-MU-MU A mšá-na-ši-šú id-di-in 10. KÙ.BABBAR-’ 1 MAŠ MA.NA ⸢5 GÍN BABBAR-ú šá ina 1 GÍN pit-qa 11. nu-uh-hu-tu₄ ŠÁM a-mì-lut-ti-šú

lo.e. 12. ina ŠUII md+AG-mu-še-<ti>-iq-UD.DA

13. (almost centred) e-ṭi-ir rev. 14. pu-ut lúse-hu-ú u pa-qir-ra-nu 15. šá ina UGUhi a-mì-lut-ti il-la-a 16. md+AG-SUR-ZImeš na-áš-ši (space) 17. lúmu-kin-nu md+EN-ke-šìr A-šú šá mEN-šú-nu 18. A mši-gu-ú-a mKI-dUTU-TIN DUMU-šú šá 19. mNUMUN-TIN.TIRki A lúSIMUG md+AG-ŠEŠmeš-TIN 20. DUMU-šú šá mgi-mil-lu A mma-qar-tu₄ 21. mdUTU-MU DUMU-šú šá md+AG-NUMUN-SI.SÁ 22 (indented). A mEN-ú-šum-gal 23. md+EN-TINiṭ DUB.SAR A-šú šá mdAMAR.UTU-GI 24. A mSIG₁₅-dIŠKUR bár-sipaki u.e. 25. itiIZI U₄.9.KAM MU.6.KAM 26. mda-ar-’-muš LUGAL TIN.TIRki 27. (centred, in tiny script) LUGAL KUR.KUR

r.e. 28 (indented). md+AG-SUR-ZImeš (for ṣu-pur ~); no fingernail marks, being a copy.

Translation

Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti s. of Mār-bīti-iqbi desc. of Maqartu voluntarily sold Silim-Bau, his female slave whose hand, cheek and joint (presumably of the neck) are written with the name of Mār-bīti-iqbi, his father, to Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê s. of Marduk-šuma-iddina desc. of Ša-nāšīšu for one mina and 35 shekels of white clipped silver, which contains one-eighth alloy. The aforementioned silver, one mina and 35 shekels (= 95 shekels), white (and) clipped, which contains one-eighth alloy, the price of the female slave, was paid in full by Nabû-mušētiq-ūdê. Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti assumes guarantee against (suits brought by) a person acting unlawfully and a person bringing claims which arise over the (sold) slave.

Witnesses: Bēl-kēšir s. of Bēlšunu desc. of Šigûa; Itti-Šamaš-balāṭu s. of Zēr-Bābili desc. of Nappāhu; Nabû-ahhē-bulliṭ s. of Gimillu desc. of Maqartu; Šamaš-iddina s. of Nabû-zēru-līšir desc. of Bēl-ušumgal; scribe: Bēl-uballiṭ s. of Marduk-ušallim desc. of Mudammiq-Adad. Borsippa, month V, day 9, year 6 of Darius, King of Babylon, King of the lands; <fingernail mark of > Nabû-ēṭir-napšāti.

Remarks

5. See the detailed discussion just below.

6. The price (= 95 shekels) is exceptionally high, but there is one case from the same reign where the price is even much higher (193 shekels according to BM 26576 from 503 BC, see Jursa 2010: 234).

11, 15. For amīlūtu referring to a female slave see CAD A/2: 61b, s.v. amīlūtu, 2c.

19f. The third (penultimate) witness belongs to the seller’s clan.

An attempt to locate the anatomical member pa-raq in the human body The master’s name was tattooed on three body parts. The location of the first and the second part,

viz. “hand” and “cheek”, is beyond doubt. On the other hand, the designation of the third body part, viz.


– 84 –

pa-raq, is a hapax in the abundant Akkadian record. It is an Aramaic loanword in LB (see below). Before clarifying its meaning one has to bear in mind that the common denominator of “hand” and “cheek” is that both refer to body parts which are normally exposed (at least partly), given the fact that oriental sartorial practices leave a minimum exposure of the female body.3) This is understandable in view of the function of tattooing slaves and livestock: the tattooed signs must be visible since they signify that their bearers are not free but belong to an owner.4) With this in mind, a quest for the meaning of the assumed source of pa-raq in Aramaic is presently undertaken.

The spelling <pa-raq> renders a qat(V)l (or qat(V:)l) formation of P-R-Q (basically “to dismantle”).5) Admittedly, CVC-signs like RAQ are indifferent to vowel quality and quantity. Therefore <V> may render either /a/, /i/, /u/ (short or long) or /ø/ (no vowel). In addition, it can be argued that the a of <-raq> is secondary, being the result of phonotactic constraint caused by the addition of the possessive pronoun -šu to an original base *parq-. To put it simply: paraq-šu is in order to avoid a cluster of three consonants, viz. *parq(-)šu, which is not allowed in Semitic. Regarding the vowel of <-RAQ>, a(:) is supported by the comparative Aramaic material from the morphological-semantic point of view, whereas /i(:)/ or /u(:)/ are not. BHeb. mprqt “(nape of the) neck” in 1Sam. 4, 18 is rendered as prqt’ in Old Syriac (Pshitta, cf. Brockelmann 1928 [1966]: 606a) and as prqwt’ in Targum Jonathan.6) CPA has prqy’ „the joints” (Sokoloff 2014: 341-342, s.v. prq). Targumic dialects prqh, prqt’ render “neck; vertebra” (cf. CAL). BHeb. dbqym (2Ch. 18, 33), which may denote “joints” (cf. Briggs et al. 1907 [1974]: 180a, s.v. dbq), is rendered by Old Syriac (Pshitta) prq’ (prāqā) “joint, seam, juncture“ (Brockelmann 1928 [1966]: 605b: “commisura”). The re-edition by Sokoloff (2009: 1251-1252) renders prq’ as “seam”, but the CAL retains the rendering “joint”. JBA pyrq’, whose plural is extant in (by) pyrqy (dqn’) and (by) pyrqy (ryš’), is cautiously rendered by Sokoloff (2020: 877b, s.v. pyrq’) as “(the area) between ‘joints’ of the beard/head”. H.L. Fleischer (apud Levy 1924, 4: 683a ad 137b, s.v. p(y)rq’ “limb”) specified that by pyrqy ryš’ refers to the connecting places of the skull (cranial) between the wedge (sphenoid) bone and the temporal bone. Targ. prq’ renders BHeb. bhn “thumb”; it also denotes the big toe (especially the cartilage, gristle on the thumb and on the big toe). Targ. pyrqt’/pryqt’/’pqwt’ (< ‘prqwt’) means “joint, vertebra” (especially of the neck, Levy 1866-1867, 1: 55a, 2: 299-300, s.vv.). SA pr(w)qh renders BHeb. hʿṣh “the backbone” in Lev. 3, 9 (Tal 2000: 709, s.v. prwq, 3). JBA prwqy mprq’ is rendered as “it(s limbs) can be temporarily dislocated”.7)

This survey would not be complete without referring to the evidence from Middle Hebrew of the Mishnah which was strongly influenced by Aramaic:

MHeb. has prq of the knee (’rkwbh) and of the jawbone, (lower) cheek (lḥy) (Hulin X, 4). MHeb. byn prqyw is explained as byn prqy ṣw’r “between the joints of the neck” (Ab. Zara 43a).

It is also worthwhile to note other sources which indicate on which body parts slaves were marked. The owner’s name is written on (CAD Š/2: 231b, s.v. šaṭāru 1d):

The male slave’s left upper cheek (sukku, Borsippa, Bēliyau archive, 21.V. 25 Dar. I = 497 BC, [Jursa,] Paszkowiak [and Waerzeggers] 2003-2004: 255-257:BM 25098, 1), probably because this part of the face is not covered by a beard (unlike the lower cheek, Akkad. lētu). The name of the former owner of a female slave (i.e. the person who owned her before the seller) was written in Akkadian on her hand (rittu), and an Aramaic inscription on the right side of her neck (GÚ-šú šá 15-šú, Sippar, 18.II.10 Dar. I = 512 BC). The Aramaic inscription had five letters, but the parties apparently could not read them.8)

The owner’s name is written on On the female slave’s hand (rittu, Opis, Egibi archive, 25.XII.2 Camb. = 527 BC): A descendant of Egibi sold his female slave on whose hand her name was written both in Aramaic and in Akkadian (Camb. 143, 8, cf. Briant 1996: 919, iv, 1st par. in fine). It is not without interest that a member of the Babylonian urban elite used the Aramaic script (unless he himself bought her).

To sum up: it is plausible that pa-raq refers to the neck which - apart from the hand and the cheek- is one of the few exposed body parts of the oriental females, and therefore were tattooed with ownership signs.

3. karmallatu - túgkar-mál-la-tu₄ for karballatu (see von Soden 1983: 293 ad CT 56, 558, 4) is apparently with b > b, cf. the gentilics Ar-mad-da-A+A, lúAr-ma-du-ú-a which are based on Arwad (Zadok,


– 85 –

Rép. géogr. 8: 29, s.v. Armada). The sequence <r-m> in NB/LB renders /rw/ and apparently /rb/. In the cuneiform script it was impossible to distinguish between /w/ and /b/.

4. kaššīru (kaš₄-šìr, archive of the Eanna temple of Uruk, 12.IX.20 Npl. = 606 BC), which qualifies silver, renders Aram. kšyr (SA, JBA, OSyr. kšyr’, Mand. k’šyr’) “proper, fit, worthy” according to von Soden (1983: 293 ad 237:GCCI 2, 39, 2, 14). Typologically, the use of this adjective with regard to silver can be compared to Latin probus/probum in probum et numeratum argentum “good honest money, cash down” and nummi probi “good honest currency” (Plautus, Persa, 3, 3, 33; 4, 3, 5).

Notes 1. Cf. NABU 2020/128. Abbreviations (mostly of editions of cuneiform texts) are as in A.L. Oppenheim et al.

(eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (= CAD, Chicago and Glückstadt 1956-2010), unless otherwise indicated. The months (in Roman figures) are the Babylonian ones. BT = Babylonian Talmud. Abbreviated rulers’ names: Art. = Artaxerxes; Dar. = Darius; Nbk. = Nebuchadnezzar; Nbn. = Nabonidus; Nerigl. = Neriglissar. Non-bibliographical abbreviations: Aram. = Aramaic; BHeb. = Biblical Hebrew; CPA = Christian Palestinian Aramaic; desc. = descendant; Iran. = Iranian; JAram. = Jewish Aramaic; JBA = Jewish Babylonian Aramaic; JPA = Jewish Palestinian Aramaic; Mand. = Mandaic; MHeb. = Middle Hebrew; OSyr. = Old Syriac; s. = son; SA = Samaritan Aramaic; Sem. = Semitic; Targ. = Targumic (Aramaic of Jewish translations of the Bible).

2. Other terms for “lamp” in Akkadian are not recorded in NB/LB, but in other dialects, viz. (bīt) buṣinnu (OB) and mušanmirtu (NA). The former survived in several Aramaic dialects (see Kaufman 1974: 45 with n. 68).

3. “Cheek” refers to a body part which among females (but not among bearded males) is exposed in its entirety, but rittu refers to “hand” (including the wrist) whose upper part is generally covered. One would expect a more specific term, viz. “wrist”, in this context, but the common Akkadian term for “wrist” is šisīt ritti (OB and SB); šisītu (with several variants due to the presence of two sibilants) is rendered by CAD (Š/3: 124a, s.v. šisītu B) as “joint(?)”. It is is recorded only as a cut of meat in NA and NB (uzuši-ši-tu₄). Akkad. kimkimmu “wrist” is recorded only in SB lexical lists, notably in malku = šarru, which predated the 1st millennium BC. It is listed in the malku column where generally rare words are registered as the equivalent of išdi qātāti (ŠUII.meš, CAD K: 373, see Hrủša 2010: 242-243 ad iv, 56 in fine and iv, 73).

4. For asses marked with signs in NB/LB sources see Weszeli 1996: 468-469 with nn. 36-40; Weszeli and Baker 1997: 231-233:4, 2; 241-243:10, 3. For a sign on the horse’s nape of the neck (tikku) and right side (Ebabbar archive, 30.VI.25 Dar. I = 497 BC) see Jursa and Weszeli 2000: 80-81.

5. Extant in the verbal form lip-ra-aq (“let PN isolate” referring to the Arameans, early NB Nippur, Cole, Nippur, 27, 18, cf. CAD P: 161b, s.v.; Streck 2007: 150, 152, and Streck and Rudik 2018: 67a, 87b).

6. Cf. van Staalduine-Sulman 1996: 86, s.v. and Donner et al. 2005: 719a, s.v. Prqwt’ itself refers to both the neck and the spine, but Mand. pquta (mod. Mand. poquttā) denotes only “neck, throat” (Häberl 2009: 345, s.v.).

7. Sokoloff 2020: 911, s.v. prq, Itpa 2; see Wajsberg 2007: 401–402 with n. 20 ad BT Hulin 93a. 8. Jursa and Weszeli 2000: 82-84. His paternal name, Nabû-šarra-uṣur, may indicate that he belonged to the

palatial sector. The seller’s name, Ša-Nabû-dubbu, is Assyrian (like the buyer’s name Iššār-tarībi).

Bibliography

ARNOLD, W. 2019. Das Neuwestaramäische. VI. Wörterbuch. Semitica viva 4/6. Wiesbaden. BRIANT, P. 1996. Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre 2. Achaemenid History 10. Leiden. BROCKELMANN, C. 1928. Lexicon Syriacum. Halle (repr. Hildesheim 1966). BRIGGS, Ch. A., BROWN, F., DRIVER, S. R. and ROBINSON, E. 1907. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the

Old Testament, with An Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic: Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius, as Translated by Edward Robinson (corrected reprint 1974). Oxford.

CAL = The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (accessed on 10.12.21). DONNER, H., MEYER, R. and RENZ, J. 2005. Wilhelm Gesenius Hebräisches und Aramäisches

Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 3. 18th ed. Berlin and Heidelberg. HÄBERL, Ch. 2009. The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr. Semitica Viva 45. Wiesbaden. HALAYQA, I. 2014. Traditional Agricultural and Domestic Tools in Palestinian Arabic: An Ethnographic and

Lexical Study. Semitica Viva 54. Wiesbaden. HRỦŠA, I. 2010. Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru. Eine Textedition mit Übersetzung und

Kommentar. AOAT 50. Münster. JURSA, M. 2010. Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC: Economic

Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth. AOAT 377. Münster.

JURSA, M., PASZKOWIAK, J. and WAERZEGGERS, C. 2003-2004. Three Coirt Records. AfO 50: 255-268. JURSA, M. and WESZELI, M. 2000. Der ‚Zahn‘ des Schreibers. Ein aramäischer Buchstabenname in

akkadischer Transkription. ZA 90: 78-84.


– 86 –

KAUFMAN, S.A. 1974. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. AS 19. Chicago. LEVY, J. 1866-1867. Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim 1-2. Leipzig. — 1924. Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim. Berlin and Vienna 1-4 (with remarks by H.L.

FLEISCHER; repr. Darmstadt 1963). VON SODEN, W. 1977. Aramäische Wörter in neuassyrischen und neu- und spätbabylonischen Texte. Ein

Vorbericht III. OrNS 46: 183-197. — 1983. Review of Joannès, Textes économiques. ZA 73: 290-294. SOKOLOFF, M. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon: a Translation from the Latin – Correction, Expansion and Update of

C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake and Piscataway. — 2014. A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. OLA 234. Leuven, Paris and Walpole, MA. — 2017. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Dictionaries of Talmud,

Midrash and Targum 1 and Publications of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project. Third Revised and Expanded Edition. Ramat Gan.

— 2020. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Second Revised and Expanded Edition. Ramat Gan.

VAN STAALDUINE-SULMAN, E. 1996. A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets (ed. J.C. de Moor), 5: Samuel (III). London, New York and Cologne.

STRECK, M.P. 2007. Review of CAD P. ZA 97: 149-152. STRECK, M.P. and RUDIK, N. 2018. Supplements to the Akkadian Dictionaries. 1: B, P. LAOS 7, 1.

Wiesbaden. TAL, A. 2000. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic 1-2. Handbook of Oriental Studies, I/50/1. Leiden. WAJSBERG, E. 2007. The Aramaic Dialects in the New Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, in Maman,

A., Fassberg, S.E. and Breuer, Y. (eds.), Sha’are Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher. Jerusalem, 2: 393-407.

WESZELI, M. 1996. Eseleien. WZKM 86: 461-478. WESZELI, M. and BAKER, H.D. 1997. Eseleien II. WZKM 87: 231-247.

Ran ZADOK <[email protected]> Tel Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv 69778 (ISRAEL)

38) NB/LB Onomastic and lexical notes — This contribution1) will discuss three personal names and one lexeme which appear in NB/LB texts. Nos. 1, 2 are Akkadian whereas 3 is Iranian. The first anthroponym is rare and the background of its bearer is discussed. In addition, a tentative interpretation of the appellative appāti is presented. The second name leads to a reconsideration of a former proposal of mine, while the third refers to a person who is homonymous with a later Achaemenid satrap.

1. Qibî-dumqī-ilat (fdDU₁₁.GA-SIG₅.GA-i-lat) daughter of Nabû-kīn-zēri (4.d+AG-GIN-NUMUN) descendant of Nūr-Papsukkal (5ZÁLAG-dpap-sukkal), mother of Lā-abâši son of Zēr-Nabû descendant of Ilšu-abūšu, is recorded in Borsippa, Ilšu-abūšu archive, on 24.V.30 Dar. I = 492 BC (Gordon, Smith College, 92 = SC 6, 3ff., without filiation: 10: -DI.GA-, see Waerzeggers 2010: 170 with n. 706 on the marriage of a husband of the Ilšu-abūšu clan with a wife of the Nūr-Papsukkal clan). Her name denotes “Qibî-dumqī is goddess”. For the deity Qibî-dumqī cf. Krebernik 2006–2008. Qibî-dumqī-ilat was the co-owner (and abutter) of a house (its damaged description lists construction materials, viz. bricks, reeds and beams). The lodger = undertaker will dwell in the house from I.31 Dar. I onwards (i.e. seven months and one week after the drafting of the contract). The lease-and-labour contract is for 20 years. He has to pay an annual rental fee of three shekels to both owners. The lodger = undertaker’s obligations include (the pertinent passage is heavily damaged):

applying mud at the front and back (walls) of the building ([ṭi]-⸢˻i˼-di pa-ni u ku-tal-la [i]-šak-kan), building of appāti (apparently pl.) in it (ap-pa-a!-tu₄ [ina lìb-bi ip-pu-uš]).

Another text, Stolper 2000: 668-670, 678:UCLM 9-2919, 11 from [Babylon], 11.IV.19 Art. I/II/III = 446, 386 or 340 BC, has ap-pa-ta ina lìb-bi ip-pu-uš followed like here by setting doors into the doorways (gišIGmeš ina ba-ba-a-ti [i-zaq-qap], cf. Dar. 499, 11). The violator of the contract will pay one mina of white silver. Regarding appāti, the doubling of the -p- in both sources which do not belong to the same archive and sub-period, rules out a plural of aptu “window”. The 2nd option, viz. plural of appu, i.e. “tips, crowns” which is cautiously considered by Stolper (2000: 671 ad loc.) is morphologically likely, but is unparalleled as he aptly points out. The same applies to appatu “tip (of metal)” which is not inserted in construction of


– 87 –

buildings. A homonymous term which designates an element of a building (portico) is contained in NA bīt appāti, whose 2nd component is not recorded by itself in Akkadian, but being explicitly the equivalent of “Amorite” (= Western, i.e. Syrian and southeastern Anatolian) bīt hilāni, is probably a genuine Assyrian term. A portico is constructed in front of a gateway according to Sargonid royal inscriptions (see CAD A/2: 183b, s.v. appātu). Official NA terms were borrowed in NB under the Sargonid rule of Babylonia (cf. Jursa 2010: 80-81, 90-91, 97-99). It may be considered that appāti here refers to a porch, in which case it would be synonymous with taṣlīlu, the genuine Babylonian term for “porch” (CAD T: 284b). The fact that appātu is paired with rugbu “loft, attic, upper room” in LB rentals of private houses perhaps strengthens the case for rendering it as “porch” rather than “windows”: rugbu 10ù ap-pa-ta… is recorded in Stolper 2000: 668-670, 678:UCLM 9-2919, 9f. (cf. just above), who quotes (671 ad loc.) the parallel rugbu u ap-pa-tu₄ ina libbi ippuššū in 12 Dar. II = 412/1 BC (place of issue lost, presumably from central Babylonia, Walker 1978 [1980]: 237, 10, for the dating see Stolper 2000: 670). The term taṣlīlu is recorded in OB Mari and after a long gap in two NB deeds from Nippur belonging to the same house owner, viz. Bau-šarrat daughter of Sîn-zēru-līšir (TuM 2/3, 26, 27 from 19.VI.37 Nbk. II = 568 BC and 1.VI.[x] Nbk. II respectively). In all the cases both terms refer to parts of private houses, in which case the motivation for borrowing a NA term is not clear; perhaps appāti differed from taṣlīlu in structure and function: the verbs defining their construction are different (appāti with epēšu and taṣlīlu with ṣululu).

2. Iddina-ilu (MU-a-DINGIR) descendant of Sūqāyu (r4SIL-A+A) is recorded as the only witness in an unassignable deed from Borsippa, -.I.- [RN] (Zadok and Zadok 2005: 659, 669:MLC 517, rev. 4f.). This spelling and [I]d⸣-din-d+AG may exemplify a fluctuation between Iddin-DN and Iddina-DN. My conclusion that only the 1st form existed (Zadok 2020, 5) had been reached before the spelling MU-a-DINGIR came to my attention.

3. Ma-az-da-a son of A-ši-x-⸢x⸣ acted as the 3rd witness (out of five, all with two-tier Akkadian filiations), [Babylon], Mardonius archive, 25.[x].5 Xer. = 481/0 BC (Hackl 2013: 54:94 = BM 64674, 14). The given name is a hypocoristicon, viz. Old Iranian *Mazd-aya- (to the divine name Mazdāh-), like Mαζαῖος (a late Achaemenid satrap, Justi 1895 [1963]: 201b; Aram. Mzdy, see Werba 1982: 242-244:182). The name survives later in Old Syriac (Mzdy, Gignoux, Jullien and Jullien 2009: 99:284). For the type of the hypocoristicon cf. Zadok 2009: 60:2.4.1.

Note 1. Abbreviations (mostly of editions of cuneiform texts) are as in A.L. Oppenheim et al. (eds.), The Assyrian

Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago ( = CAD, Chicago and Glückstadt 1956-2010), unless otherwise indicated. The months (in Roman figures) are the Babylonian ones. Abbreviated rulers’ names: Art. = Artaxerxes; Dar. = Darius; Nbk. = Nebuchadnezzar; Xer. = Xerxes.

Bibliography

GIGNOUX, Ph., JULLIEN, Ch. and JULLIEN, F. 2009. Noms propres syriaques d’origine iranienne. Iranisches Personennamenbuch. Iranische Namen in semitischen Nebenüberlieferungem 7/5. SÖAW 789. Vienna.

HACKL, J. 2013. Materialien zur Urkundenlehre und Archivkunde der spätzeitlichen Texte aus Nordbabylonien 1-2. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Vienna.

JURSA, M. 2010. Der neubabylonische Hof, in Jacobs, B. and Rollinger, R. (eds.), Der Achämenidenhof. Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema „Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen”. Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.–25. Mai 2007. Classica et Orientalia 2. Wiesbaden: 67–106,

JUSTI, F. 1895. Iranisches Namenbuch. Marburg (rep. Hildesheim 1963). KREBERNIK, M. 2006–2008. Qibî-dumqī. RlA 11: 177 STOLPER, M.W. 2000. Buildings on Bow Land and Encumbrances on Buildings, in DITTMANN, R. et al. (eds.),

Variatio Delectat. Iran und der Westen. Gedenkschrift für Peter Calmeyer. AOAT 272. Münster: 667-680.

WAERZEGGERS, C. 2010. The Ezida Temple of Borsippa: Priesthood, Cult, Archives. Achaemenid History 15. Leiden.

WALKER, C.B.F. 1978 [1980]. Texts and Fragments. JCS 30: 234-249. WERBA, Ch. 1982. Die arischen Personennamen und ihre Träger bei den Alexanderhistorikern. Studien zur

iranischen Anthroponomastik. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Vienna.


– 88 –

ZADOK, R. 2009. Iranische Personennamen in der neu- und spätbabylonischen Nebenüberlieferung. Iranisches Personennamenbuch. Iranische Namen in semitischen Nebenűberlieferungen 7/1B. SÖAW 777. Vienna.

— 2020. Arameo-Akkadica. NABU 2020/27. ZADOK, R. and T. ZADOK, 2005. Contributions to Neo/Late-Babylonian Documentation, in Y. SEFATI, P.

ARTZI, C. COHEN, B.L. EICHLER and V.A. HUROWITZ (eds.), “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda: 624-669.

Ran ZADOK <[email protected]>

39) “Chaldean” as kalû? — It is generally assumed that the Greek term khaldaîos (χαλδαῖος), “Chaldean,” translates the Akkadian term kaldû or māt kaldu, a socio-ethnic designation for a group residing in southern Babylonia that was traditionally connected with the kings of the Neo-Babylonian empire.1) In Classical sources, the Chaldeans are often depicted as being renowned for their skills in astrology and astronomy; indeed, the term “Chaldean” was sometimes used as a by-word for “astrologer.” One might then reasonably assume that, during the Late Babylonian period, “Chaldean” became a catch-all term for Babylonian culture, and that Babylonian culture was in turn reduced to the practice of astrology—which was indeed a prevalent interest among the surviving centers of cuneiform scholarship during this period. Dietz-Otto Edzard (1980, 296), for example, claims that in Classical sources, the term “Chaldean” simply serves as a synonym for “Babylonian,” with the Chaldeans “par excellence” being those who were interested in astrology and related matters.

However, there are problems with this interpretation, and chief among them is the fact that several Classical sources explicitly refer to the Chaldeans as a sub-group among the Babylonians, and specifically as a group of scholarly professionals. The third-century CE historian Diogenes Laertius notes that, just as the Greeks have their philosophers, so do the Persians have their magi, the Celts their druids, and the Babylonians and Assyrians their Chaldeans (Hicks 1959, 3). This statement seems to contradict the notion that the Chaldeans just were the Babylonians; so while that simplistic view might be found in some Classical authors, it was not universal. For Diogenes, one group was clearly distinct from and nested within the other, but it should be noted that Diogenes has his own agenda: he consistently seeks to portray non-Greek groups as equivalent to Greek philosophers, highlighting the aspects of those groups that resemble philosophers while suppressing those that do not. It would thus be in Diogenes’s interest to portray what was an originally ethnic affiliation as a scholarly profession. But with that caveat in mind, his description does leave open the intriguing possibility that the Chaldeans were a group of Babylonian scholar-priests, not just the Greek term for the Babylonians.

Likewise, the recent essay by Alexander Jones and John Steele (2018) on Diodorus’s first-century BCE description of the Chaldeans makes clear that Diodorus too viewed them as “a specific scholarly community in Babylon” (334). He compares the Chaldeans to Egyptian priests and notes that, “having been assigned to the cultivation of the gods, they practice philosophy for all the time of their life, having a very great repute in astral science” (336)—hardly a description of the entire Babylonian population. Diodorus further writes that the Chaldeans perform various forms of divination as well as apotropaic and purifying rituals; remarking that, by contrast to Greek students, the Chaldeans were taught by their fathers (337). The latter point was part of Diodorus’s larger polemic against Greek philosophy, as he praised the supposed stability of a family-based knowledge transfer in contrast to the supposed opportunism of the Greek educational system, which focused on rhetorical argument.

There is only one real candidate for a scholarly community that, in the Late Babylonian period, specialized in astrology and divination, performed purifications and apotropaic rituals, passed on the profession along family lines, could be compared to Egyptian priests, and bore a name that sounds like khaldaîos—and that is the kalû’s.2) Granted, both Diogenes and Diodorus describe the Chaldeans with their respective agendas in mind, so they are not uninterested witnesses. But their accounts at least show that there was an ambiguity inherent in Classical uses of the term “Chaldean,” as it could refer to a priestly-scholarly group of specialized astrologers within the Babylonian population at large. Johannes Haubold is currently preparing a new and much-needed study of the Chaldeans and their place in the Classical afterlife


– 89 –

of cuneiform culture—a study that can be expected to clear up many of the doubts that currently cloud this troubled term. For the time being, I would propose that, during the Late Babylonian period, a translingual confusion arose by which the Akkadian words kalû and kaldû merged into a single Greek term, khaldaîos, thereby enmeshing the notion of an ethnic group associated with the Neo-Babylonian empire with that of a priest-like community of expert stargazers. The dynamics of this confusion remain unclear to me. It might be a simple misunderstanding on the part of Greek writers, it might be a conscious attempt by the kalû’s to present themselves as the rightful heirs to cuneiform culture, or it might be some mixture of these and other factors. Whatever the case, it should be clear that, far from a simple synonym for “Babylonian,” the word “Chaldean” carried a complex history and contradictory set of connotations, referring sometimes to the Mesopotamia tradition and population as a whole, and sometimes to a delimited group of scholars. But to me, it seems highly likely that some Classical authors meant by “Chaldean” what we mean by kalû.

Notes 1. For an overview of the Chaldeans and their possible connection to the ruling dynasty of the Neo-Babylonian

empire, see Beaulieu (2013, 32–45). On the position of the Chaldeans and Chaldean thought in the Classical tradition, see the overview in Haubold (2020). I would like to thank Johannes Haubold for his constructive feedback on this note.

2. For an overview of the various priestly and scholarly professions’ involvement in astrology-astronomy during the first millennium BCE, see Robson (2019).

Bibliography

BEAULIEU, P.-A., 2013: “Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Cuneiform Sources,” in A. BERLEJUNG & M. P. STRECK, (eds.), Arameans, Chaldeans, and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C., Wiesbaden, 31–55.

HICKS, R. D., 1959: Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Cambridge, Mass. HAUBOLD, J., 2020: “Chaldean Interactions,” in KÖNIG, A., LANGLANDS, R. & UDEN, J. (eds.), Literature and

Culture in the Roman Empire, 96–235, Cambridge, 309–27. EDZARD, D. O., 1980: “Kaldu (Chaldäer),” RlA 5: 291–96. JONES, A. & J. STEELE 2018: “Diodorus on the Chaldeans,” in Cristostomo, C. J. et. al. (eds.), “The

Scaffolding of Our Thoughts”: Essays on Assyriology and the History of Science in Honor of Francesca Rochberg, AMD 13, Leiden, 333–52.

ROBSON, E., 2019: “Who Wrote the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries?,” in ,J. HAUBOLD, J. STEELE & K. STEVENS (eds.), Keeping Watch in Babylon: The Astronomical Diaries in Context, Leiden, 120–53.

Sophus HELLE <[email protected]> Freie Universität Berlin (GERMANY)

40) Die „qualitativ bewertete Zeit“ – das gesamte Narrativ — Schon Liverani (1973, 187) hat darauf aufmerksam gemacht , dass sich in literarischen wie historisch angelegten Texten des alten Orients immer wieder ein Darstellungsprinzip findet, in welchem ein Reformator oder sonstiger Machthaber für sich in Anspruch nimmt, eine krisenhafte Situation bereinigt und damit zu einem früheren, besseren Zustand zurückgekehrt zu sein. Dieses Darstellungsprinzip findet sich von Enmetena an (vgl. Seminara 2015, 421) und wurde im gesamten Orient zu allen Zeiten angewendet. Eine exemplarische Untersuchung wurde etwa von Seminara (2015) für die Reformen des UruKAgina vorgelegt. Eine geordnete, erschöpfende Liste aller Belege existiert bislang nicht, doch die bei Veenhof (2001, 29), Janssen (2019, 169f.), Liverani und Seminara gegebenen Beispiele deuten die räumliche und zeitliche Verbreitung bereits an. Thematisch wurde das Prinzip der qualitativ bewerteten Zeit offenbar auch in Königslisten (USKL; AKL) und in Distanzangaben angewendet (vgl. Janssen 2016, 2019).

Neben den vier von Liverani festgestellten Phasen des Konzepts findet sich gelegentlich noch ein vorangestellter Wanderungsmythos (Barstadt 2008, 17; siehe dazu Janssen 2019). Wie ich erst kürzlich gesehen habe, hat Grabbe (2007) eine weitere Phase und damit den Abschluss des Konzepts gefunden, ohne dies jedoch selbst bemerkt zu haben. Er beschäftigt sich in seinem Beitrag mit der Historizität des biblischen Buchs Ezra. Er kommt zu einem negativen Ergebnis, da er im Vergleich mit anderen Texten feststellt, dass hier wie dort die Erzählung demselben Schema folgt. Ohne Grabbes Beitrag hier nachzuerzählen sei einfach


– 90 –

mitgeteilt, dass die Phase, die er findet, diejenige der Anerkennung/Belohnung ist. Die Leistung, die anerkannt wird, ist die von Phase 4, die Überwindung der Störung. Wird die Leistung von einem „normalen“ Menschen erbracht, ist die anerkennende Instanz der König oder ein Vorgesetzter und die Belohnung besteht in sozialem Aufstieg und/oder materieller Vergütung. Erbringt der König selbst die Leistung, ist die anerkennende Instanz eine Gottheit, die des Königs Herrschaftsspanne verlängert bzw. erneuert. Das gesamte Konzept sieht also folgendermaßen aus:

Phase 0 Wanderungsmythos; Bewegung von A nach B Barstad 2008 Phase 1 Beginn der neuen Situation; Schöpfung; Initialisierung Liverani 1973 Phase 2 Ordnungsgemäßer, störungsfreier Ablauf Phase 3 Störung; Krise; Verfall Phase 4 Beseitigung des Problems und „Neustart“ Phase 5 Anerkennung/Belohnung durch eine mächtigere Instanz Grabbe 2007

Die Nummerierung der Phasen wurde so gewählt, um Liveranis ursprüngliche vier Phasen weiterhin als 1-4 zählen zu können. Das Schema wurde aus verschiedenen Quellen gewonnen, so dass sich die Frage erhebt, wie repräsentativ die gegebene Aufstellung eigentlich ist. Es ist ein Charakteristikum der qualitativ bewerteten Zeit, dass ihre Beispiele ganz unterschiedlich komplex ausgestaltet sind, d.h. dass Phasen weggelassen werden können. So ist Phase 0 nur ganz selten belegt (Barstad 2008, 17 und implizit bei Šamšī-Adad I., s. unten) während die entscheidenden Phasen 3 und 4 immer vorhanden sind und konstitutionellen Charakter besitzen. Neu und wichtig ist, dass wir nun erkennen können, dass die in Inschriften so häufig formulierte Information, die Gottheit habe die Herrschaftszeit des Königs wegen einer bestimmten Tat verlängert, Teil und Abschluss der „qualitativ bewerteten Zeit“ ist.

Im Lichte dieser Erkenntnis seien hier die Distanzangaben von Enlil-bāni und Šamšī-Adad I. betrachtet. Enlil-bānis Text ist nur als Abschrift erhalten (editio princeps: Loding 1973; Frayne, RIME 4, 86, E4.1.10.11 ). Demnach hat er zwei Statuen, die Iddin-Dagān für Ninlil in Nippur hat anfertigen lassen, mit 117jähriger Verspätung dorthin liefern lassen. Der König verkündet, dass Enlil ihm dafür die Herrschaftszeit verlängert habe. Hier liegen offenbar die Phasen 3-5 des oben beschriebenen Konzepts vor.

An dieser Stelle sei eine Abschweifung erlaubt. Die Zahl 117 ist offenbar korrekt (schon bei Janssen 2020), weist aber eine Besonderheit auf: sie endet mit Enlil-bānis letztem Regierungsjahr! Sofern nicht erst der Kopist die Berechnung angestellt hat, stand die Distanzangabe bereits auf den Statuen. Enlil-bāni hatte es anscheinend nicht eilig, die Statuen auszuliefern, zumal der Weg von Isin nach Nippur bereits seit Erra-imitti wieder freigekämpft war (Frayne 1998, 26, 28 (Item 3)). Ich vermute, dass Enlil-bāni die Statuen herzlich egal waren – bis er todkrank wurde. Irgendwann verfielen die Ärzte auf den Ausweg, Enlil-bāni seinem Namenspatron anzuvertrauen und über die Verlängerung der Herrschaftsdauer zumindest Zeit zu gewinnen und vielleicht implizit auch eine Gesundung zu erreichen – und so wurden die Statuen auf den Weg geschickt. Der Umstand, dass das letzte Jahr der Distanzangabe identisch ist mit Enlil-bānis letztem Lebensjahr verdeutlicht das Scheitern des Planes.

Die Distanzangabe Šamšī-Adads I. hatte ich schon früher besprochen (Janssen 2019, 170) und festgestellt dass die Phasen 1-4 in seiner Distanzangabe auftauchen. Doch offenbar sind auch die Phasen 0 und 5 dort repräsentiert. Sehen wir es uns erneut an:

Phase 0 Bewegung von A nach B Die Akkader dringen bis Ninive vor Phase 1 Beginn der neuen Situation Maništusu gründet dort den Ištar-Tempel Phase 2 Ordnungsgemäßer Ablauf Endet mit dem Fall von Akkade Phase 3 Krise/Verfall/Störung 7 dāru lang wird der Tempel nicht erneuert Phase 4 Beseitigung des Problems Šamšī-Adad erobert Ninive und erbaut einen neuen Ištar-Tempel Phase 5 Anerkennung Ištar erneuert Šamšī-Adads Herrschaft

Phase 5 wird im Text genannt (Grayson, RIMA 1: A.0.39.2: iii 6-9). Phase 0 steht nicht explizit dort, kann aber über den Namen Maništusu erschlossen werden, da Ninive nicht ursprünglich zum akkadischen Herrschaftsbereich gehört hat.

Noch eine Abschweifung: J.G. Westenholz (2004) ist der Ansicht, die akkadische Gründung des Tempels sei eine fromme Fälschung Šamšī-Adads I. Glücklicherweise räumt sie am Ende ihres Beitrags ein, dass sie falsch liegen könnte, denn ihre Ansicht beruht auf falschen chronologischen Vorstellungen.


– 91 –

Die 7 dāru sind ihr „[o]ne clear give-away as to the patent falseness of the inscription“ (Westenholz 2004, 12), da bereits die Assyrer 9 Generationen vor Šamšī-Adad in der AKL aufgezeichnet hätten. Wie viele andere auch übersetzt sie dāru mit „Generation“. Wir wissen heute jedoch (Janssen 2017), dass hier 7 x 60 zu rechnen ist und folglich „lifespan“ die korrekte Übersetzung für dāru ist. Zudem hat sich herausgestellt, dass bei korrekter Ansetzung Šamšī-Adads Eroberung von Ninive tatsächlich 420 Jahre nach dem Fall von Akkade (klassische MC) stattfand (Janssen 2017). Diese Übereinstimmung ist nicht zufällig, sondern bedeutet, dass er eine Königsliste hatte, anhand derer seine Gelehrten in der Lage waren, die zeitliche Entfernung der eigenen Gegenwart vom Fall von Akkade zu bestimmen. Folglich hat er tatsächlich bis zum 420. Jahr gewartet, um den Zahlensymbolismus Wirklichkeit werden zu lassen.

Kehren wir nun zu unserem 6-Phasen-Konzept zurück. Die Phasen selbst scheinen sehr grundlegend und damit universell anwendbar zu sein. Ein Beispiel:

Phase 0 Bewegung von A nach B Wir gehen in ein Geschäft und kaufen ein Gerät Phase 1 Beginn der neuen Situation Wir benutzen es zum ersten Mal Phase 2 Ordnungsgemäßer Ablauf Das Gerät arbeitet einwandfrei Phase 3 Krise/Verfall/Störung Das Gerät arbeitet nicht mehr einwandfrei oder geht kaputt Phase 4 Beseitigung des Problems Das Gerät wird von uns oder einer spezialisierten Person repariert Phase 5 Anerkennung Lob, Dankbarkeit, ggf. Bezahlung, Trinkgeld

Entsprechendes gilt für die Karriere (dazu die Beispiele bei Grabbe 2007), Liebesbeziehungen, Lernverhalten usw. Das vorgestellte Beispiel ist insofern harmlos, als es keine moralisch-ethischen Probleme aufwirft. Das kann sich jedoch drastisch ändern, denn das System ist stark abhängig von der Perspektive des „Gewinners“. Dies machen besonders die Beispiele bei Grabbe deutlich. Dort geht es um Rivalitäten der Höflinge untereinander: man versucht, den Kontrahenten von Phase 2 in Phase 3 zu stürzen, in dem Bestreben, zu verhindern, dass ihm Phase 4 gelingt. Dem Protagonisten gelingt es (unter Schwierigkeiten), von Phase 3 zu Phase 4 zu kommen, wobei der Antagonist selbst von Phase 2 in Phase 3 gerät. Der Antagonist bleibt dann in Phase 3 stecken, mit teils drastischen Konsequenzen für ihn, seine Laufbahn und seine Familie.

Dies ist problematisch, denn das bedeutet, dass für das Erreichen von Phase 4 möglicherweise alle Mittel recht sind. Zudem tritt ein Automatismus auf: Indem ich mich aus Phase 3 heraus kämpfe und Phase 4 erreiche, bin ich automatisch gerechtfertigt. Der Erfolg wird zum Maßstab für ethisch-moralische Richtigkeit, abgesichert durch die Autoritätsperson von Phase 5. Dies gilt im privaten wie im öffentlichen-politischen Bereich.

Aufgrund des aufgezeigten Schematismus glaubt Grabbe, dem Buch Ezra die historische Relevanz absprechen zu können. Wie gezeigt, ist das zugrunde liegende System sehr basisch; man kann ihm im Grunde nicht entkommen. Zudem kommt die Überlegung, dass es in der Vorstellungswelt der damals lebenden Menschen wohl so war, dass ein Vorgang als besonders authentisch galt, wenn er mit bestimmten Mustern übereinstimmte. Unsere Beispiele illustrieren, dass aus der Anwendung dieses Schemas nicht zwangsläufig folgt, dass das Erzählte signifikant vom Tatsächlichen abwichen.

Das vorgestellte Konzept wurde offensichtlich dem (menschlichen) Leben selbst abgeschaut. Es gliedert einen Ablauf einfach in einzelne Phasen, ohne dass deswegen ethische Probleme relevant werden müssen. Wir haben es hier anscheinend mit einer Prozesstheorie zu tun, vielleicht der ältesten der Welt. Sowohl die Anwendung des Konzepts innerhalb von Königslisten zur Bewertung von Vorgängern (Janssen 2016; 2019) als auch das zynische Verhalten der Charaktere in den von Grabbe analysierten Texten zeigen jedoch die Sprengkraft des Konzepts auf.

Literatur

BARSTAD, H.M., 2008: History and the Hebrew Bible, in BARSTAD, H.M., 2008: History and the Hebrew Bible. Studies in Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 61), Tübingen, 1-24.

FRAYNE, D.R., 1990: Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 BC) (RIME 4), Toronto, Buffalo, London. Ib., 1998: New Light on the Reign of Išme-Dagān, ZA 88, 6-44. GRABBE, L.L., 2007: Biblical Historiography in the Persian Period: or How the Jews Took Over the Empire,

in S. HOLLOWAY (Ed.): Orientalism, Assyriologiy and the Bible (Hebrew Bible Monographs 10), Sheffield, 400-414.


– 92 –

GRAYSON, A.K., 1987: Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC) (RIMA 1), Toronto, Buffalo, London.

JANSSEN, Th., 2016: Die USKL als Vorbild für den ‚Grundstock‘ der AKL, NABU 2016/35, 62-64. Ib., Th., 2017: Zur Verknüpfung mehrerer Fixpunkte der mesopotamischen Chronologie von 2200-1760,

NABU 2017/23, 44-47. Ib., Th., 2019: Der Anfang der Assyrischen Königsliste: Vertiefung des Sachverhalts, NABU 2019/95, 169-

172. Ib., 2020: Lugal-ana-tum und die Chronologie der Gutäerzeit, NABU 2020/85, 177-179. LIVERANI, M., 1973: Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Texts, OrNS 42, 178-194. LODING, D., 1973: A New Chronological Source for the Isin-Larsa Period, AfO 24, 47-50. SEMINARA, S., 2015: Die Rede des Königs. Die sogenannten ‚Reformen‘ UruKAginas zwischen Politik und

Theologie, in DITTMANN, R., SELZ, G.J. (eds.): It’s a Long Way to a Historiography of the Early Dynastic Period(s) (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 15), Münster, 405-431.

VEENHOF, K.R., 2001: Geschichte des Alten Orients bis zur Zeit Alexanders des Großen, (=Grundrisse zum Alten Testament 11), Göttingen.

WESTENHOLZ, J.G., 2004: The Old Akkadian Presence in Niniveh: Fact or Fiction?, Iraq 66, 7-18.

Thomas JANSSEN <[email protected]>

41) Cuneiform Tablets from Various Auctions – Part III: The Second and First Millennium B. C. — This article is the last one of a series of compilations of inscribed cuneiform tablets, which were collected by the author from various catalogues of auctions. The first part was published in NABU 2017 n° 3 (Theis 2017) and compiles tablets from the third Millennium B. C. up to the beginning of the Third Dynasty of Ur; the second part in NABU 2021 n° 1 (Theis 2021) compiles tablets from the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur and also tablets from the third Millennium B. C. of uncertain date. As it was the aim of the first two parts, the aim of this part containing a list of cuneiform tablets from the second and first Millennium B. C. is to make these tablets available for scholars and preserve their content for research. It is unknown how many of the mentioned tablets were acquired by a museum or another scientific institution, but we can assume that some or most – if not all – of them were acquired by private collectors, and are therefore lost for research.

The tablets were entered according to their dating and the entries offer the given information from the catalogues. Unfortunately, some of the catalogues did not present a photo or anything similar, so that the presented information could not be checked. The internet addresses listed were last accessed on 20th December 2021.

Isin-Larsa period

– Clay tablet containing an account for the temple of Dagan. Date: accession year of Šu-ilišu, king of Isin. Size: 7 × 4,5 cm. Auction: Wednesday, 20th June, 1990 → Sotheby’s 1990, no. 132.

– Clay cuneiform cone of Lipit-Ištar with a commemoration: “I am Lipit-Ištar, the solicitous shepherd of Nippur, the faithful farmer of Ur, who cares unceasingly for Eridu, the exemplary Lord of Uruk, King of Isin, King of Sumer and Akkad, cherished by the goddess Inanna. When I had established justice in Sumer and Akkad, I built the house of justice in the Namgarum area, the eminent place of the gods.” Height: 10,6 cm; two columns of text. Auction: Wednesday, 15th June, 1988 → Sotheby’s 1988, no. 43.

– Terracotta foundation cone of Lipit-Ištar with a dedicatory inscription. Size: not mentioned. Auction: Thursday, 8th December, 1994 → Sotheby’s 1994, no. 66.

– Three foundation cones, each inscribed with one register of columns for Lipit-Ištar, king of Isin, with a building inscription of the Gipar-complex for Enninsunzi. Height: between 14,3 and 15,9 cm. Auction: Thursday, 14th December, 1978 → Sotheby’s 1978c, no. 184.

– Six clay foundation cones, all with identical inscriptions recording a dedication of a storehouse built in the city of Isin. Size: 11,3 cm; some small pieces are chipped off; 37 lines of text each. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 107 (Parallel: Frayne 1990, nos. 49–51).

– Four clay tablets: one recording a receipt of barley; one with an administrative account of sesame; one an envelope tablet recording an account of the receipt of sesame oil; and one an account of barley rations for the house of the lady. Date: from the reign of king Rim-Sîn I of Larsa. Size: largest tablet 10 cm. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 108.

– Three clay tablets: one with an account of barley; one with an account of grain disbursement; and one with an account of silver from the 59th year of king Rim-Sîn I of Larsa. Size: largest tablet 10,3 cm. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 109.


– 93 –

– Two clay cuneiform tablets including one recording an account of barley and one recording rations of grain and persons receiving them. Date: from the reign of king Rim-Sîn I of Larsa. Size: largest tablet 12,7 cm; some small pieces are chipped off. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 111.

– Cuneiform tablet from the reign of king Rim-Sîn I of Larsa, recording the restauration of the temple E-a-ga-ga-kilib-ur-ur for the goddess Ningal by Simat-Ištar, the wife of king Rim-Sîn I. Size: 12,2 cm. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 114.

– Limestone cuneiform tablet from the reign of king Rim-Sîn I of Larsa, with the same inscription as the aforementioned object. Size: 11,7 cm. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 115.

– Five terracotta foundation cones recording a dedication of a storehouse built in the city of Isin, with the same inscription as the aforementioned pieces. Size: 12,5 cm; some small pieces are chipped off; 37 lines of text each. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 110.

– Limestone cylinder from the reign of king Warad-Sîn of Larsa. Size: 13,8 cm; 20 lines of text. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 113.

– Clay tablet of the 20th century B. C., probably from the city of Umma, with details about work to be done on a boat. Date: unknown. Auction: Monday, 11th April, 1960 → Sotheby’s 1960, p. 5, no. 10.

– Clay tablet of the 20th century B. C., probably from the city of Umma, with details of work by twelve men in three groups. Date: unknown. Auction: Monday, 11th April, 1960 → Sotheby’s 1960, p. 5, no. 10.

– Clay tablet of the 20th century B. C., probably from the city of Umma, with details of work by one man. Date: unknown. Auction: Monday, 11th April, 1960 → Sotheby’s 1960, p. 5, no. 10.

– Clay tablet of the 20th century B. C., probably from the city of Umma, with an issue of barley for offerings. Date: unknown. Auction: Monday, 11th April, 1960 → Sotheby’s 1960, p. 5, no. 10.

– Clay tablet of the 20th century B. C., probably from the city of Umma, with receipts for three kinds of woollen cloth and two linen cloths. Date: unknown. Auction: Monday, 11th April, 1960 → Sotheby’s 1960, p. 5, no. 10.

– Clay tablet of the 20th century B. C., probably from the city of Umma, with details about an issue of grain. Date: unknown. Auction: Monday, 11th April, 1960 → Sotheby’s 1960, p. 5, no. 10.

Old-Assyrian period

– Large clay tablet. Date: unknown. Size: 12,7 × 7,6 cm. Auction: Tuesday, 18th June, 1991 → Sotheby’s 1991, no. 311.

Old-Babylonian period

– Three fragmentary foundation cones of Sîn-kāšid, king of Uruk. Size: between 4,9 and 6,3 cm. Auction: Thursday, 14th December, 1978 → Sotheby’s 1978c, no. 185.

– Clay cone of Sîn-kāšid, king of Uruk. Size: 15,7 cm. Auction: Tuesday, 18th June, 1991 → Sotheby’s 1991, no. 310. – Clay cone of Sîn-kāšid, king of Uruk. Size: not mentioned. Auction: Thursday, 8th December, 1994 → Sotheby’s

1994, no. 66. – A clay tablet recording the dedication of the royal palace by king Sîn-kašid, king of Uruk. Auction: New York, 4th

June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 109. – Steatite cuneiform tablet with a dedication inscription of Sîn-kāšid, king of Uruk: “For Lugalbanda, his god, and for

Ninsun, his mother, Sîn-kāšid, king of Uruk, king of Amnanum, and the provider of the Eanna temple, when he had built the Eanna temple, he built for them the Ekankal, their dwelling house which makes the heart happy. For the period of his kingship, one shekel of silver could buy, at the market rate of his land: three kor of barley, twelve minas of wool, ten minas of copper, or three ban of vegetable oil. May his years be years of abundance”. Size: 9,3 cm. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 112.

– Four clay tablets with administrative texts, including lists of issues or deliveries of various types of oil and others. Size: not mentioned. Auction: Monday, 17th December, 1979 → Sotheby’s 1979, no. 201.

– Clay tablet recording the names of recipients of barley rations. Size: 17,5 cm; 142 lines of text. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 106.

– Clay tablet. Old Babylonian period, but no further information given. Auction: Monday, 8th December, 2000, lot 157 → http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/ 2000/antiquities-and-islamic-works-of-art-ny7572/lot.157.html.

– Clay tablet. Old Babylonian period, but no further information given. Auction: Monday, 8th December, 2000, lot 158 → http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/ 2000/antiquities-and-islamic-works-of-art-ny7572/lot.158.html.

Middle-Assyrian period

– Gypsum Alabaster foundation plaque from the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I. The text records the restoration of the temple of Ištar, which Ilu-šuma had built. Size: 37 × 27 cm; 59 lines of text. Auction: Wednesday, 10th December, 2008 → Sotheby’s 2008, no. 62 (Parallel: Grayson 1987, no. 13).

Middle-Elamite period

– Terracotta commemorative brick of Untaš-Napiriša with a dedication of a temple to the goddess Upurkubak: “I am Untaš-Napiriša, son of Humban-numena, King of Anzan and Susa. When I beseech Upurkubak she will […], and when I make a claim she will bring it about. I built this temple. I had Upurkubak cast and placed it in the temple.


– 94 –

May that which was made and beautified by me be preserved forever by Upurkubak!” Size: 38,7 cm; four lines of text. Auction: Friday, 23th June, 1989 → Sotheby’s 1989, no. 299a.

Neo-Assyrian period

– A Gypsum inscription fragment from the palace of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud. Size: 47,9 × 76,8 cm; the edges are chipped off; 22 lines of text. Auction: 7th June, 2007 → Sotheby’s 2007, no. 82 (Parallel: Grayson 1991, no. 111).

– A Gypsum inscription fragment from the palace of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud. Size: 53 × 52 cm. Auction: Thursday, 8th December, 1994 → Sotheby’s 1994, no. 67.

– Clay brick from the reign of Šalmanassar III, recording the construction of the Ziggurat of Kalḫu. Size: not mentioned. Auction: Wednesday, 9th June, 2004 → http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2004/antiquities-n08003/lot.77.html.

– Clay cylinder of octagonal form, the inscription is describing a part of the history of the reign of Sargon II and the building of his palace. Size: 23,5 cm. Auction: Monday, 9th July, 1973 → Sotheby’s 1973, p. 11, no. 27.

Neo-Babylonian period

– Large clay tablet from the reign of Nebukadrezar II with the inscription “Nebukadrezar, King of Babylon, supporter of Esagila and Ezida, first-born son of Nabupolassar, King of Babylon.” Size: 32,5 × 32,5 cm. Auction: Monday, 27th February, 1978 → Sotheby’s 1978a, no. 229.

– Large clay tablet from the reign of Nebukadrezar II with the inscription “Nebukadrezar, King of Babylon, supporter of Esagila and Ezida, first-born son of Nabupolassar, King of Babylon.” Size: 33 × 8,5 cm; 7 lines of text. Auction: Wednesday, 18th December, 2013 → Gorny u. Mosch 2013, no. 583 (Parallel: Identical with the aforementioned piece).

– Large clay brick from the reign of Nebukadrezar II with the inscription “Nebukadrezar, King of Babylon, supporter of Esagila and Ezida, eldest son of Nabupolassar, King of Babylon.” Size: 31,7 × 33 cm. Auction: Monday, 18th December, 1978 → Sotheby’s 1978b, no. 238.

– Terracotta cuneiform cylinder from the reign of Nebukadrezar II with the king’s description of numerous public works, including the building of the temple for Lugal-Marada at Marad. Size: 22,6 cm; two bigger pieces are broken out; three registers of text. Auction: Wednesday, 15th June, 1988 → Sotheby’s 1988, no. 41 (Parallel: Langdon 1905, no. 2).

– Terracotta cuneiform foundation brick from the reign of Nebukadrezar II with the recording of the restoration of the temples of Bit Šagget and Bit Zida. Size: 20,3 × 16,5 cm; seven lines of text. Auction: Wednesday, 15th June, 1988 → Sotheby’s 1988, no. 42.

– Clay cuneiform foundation brick from the reign of Nebukadrezar II with the recording of the restoration of the temples of Esagila and Ezida. Size: 33 × 33 cm; three lines of text. Auction: Friday, 23th June, 1989 → Sotheby’s 1989, no. 300.

– Clay cuneiform foundation brick from the reign of Nebukadrezar II with the recording of the restoration of the temples of Esagila and Ezida. Size: 8,9 × 17,2 cm. Auction: Monday, 22nd December, 1975 → Sotheby’s 1975, no. 156.

– Clay cuneiform foundation cylinder from the reign of Nebukadrezar II, recording a general account of the kings building activities. Size: 20,2 cm. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 116.

– Clay cuneiform foundation cylinder from the reign of Nebukadrezar II, recording the rebuilding of the temple of Ninkarrak in Sippar. Size: 23 cm. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 117.

– Clay cuneiform foundation cylinder from the reign of Nebukadrezar II, recording the restoration of the Ebabbar temple of Šamaš in Sippar. Size: 12,1 cm. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 118.

– Clay cuneiform foundation cylinder from the reign of Nebukadrezar II, recording the restoration of the temple of Šamaš in Sippar. Size: 12,1 cm. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 119.

– Clay cuneiform foundation cylinder from the reign of Nebukadrezar II, recording the restoration of the Ebabbar temple of Šamaš in Sippar. Size: 11,4 cm. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 120.

– Clay cuneiform foundation cylinder from the reign of Nebukadrezar II, recording the restoration of the temple of Šamaš in Larsa. Size: 14 cm. Auction: New York, 4th June, 2015 → Christie’s 2014, no. 121.

– Clay cuneiform tablet from the reign of Nebukadrezar II, with inscription “Nebukadrezar, king of Babylon, restorer of Esangila and Ezida, eldest son of Nabupolassar, king of Babylon.” Size: 19,5 × 20,3 cm. Auction: Monday, 27th March, 1961 → Sotheby’s 1961, p. 11, no. 41.

– Clay tablet with rations for workman, giving the names of overseers or employers. Size and condition not mentioned. Auction: Monday, 18th May, 1970 → Sotheby’s 1970, no. 63.

Without further information

– Ten clay tablets. Auction: Friday, 20th June, 2003, lot 42 → http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2003/fine-books-and-manuscripts-including-americana-n07914/lot.42.html.

– Eight clay tablets. Auction: Friday, 20th June, 2003, lot 43 → http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2003/fine-books-and-manuscripts-including-americana-n07914/lot.43.html.


– 95 –

– Seven clay tablets. Auction: Friday, 20th June, 2003, lot 41 → http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2003/fine-books-and-manuscripts-including-americana-n07914/lot.41.html.

– Four clay tablets. Auction: Friday, 20th June, 2003, lot 44 → http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2003/fine-books-and-manuscripts-including-americana-n07914/lot.44.html.

Persian period

– Rectangular clay tablet documenting a mortgage of an orchard and a tract of land, pledged by Abda and Banunu, to Bel-nādin-šumu, senior member of the firm Marašu, sons of Nippur. Date: from the 29th day of the 4th month of the first year of Darius II. (5th August, 423 B. C.). Size: 5,1 × 7,9 × 2,2 cm. Auction: Friday, 12th December, 2014 → Sotheby’s 2014, no. 48 (Parallel: cf. Hilprecht 1898, Nos. 20sq.).

Seleucid Era

– Clay tablet with a contract for the sale of a house in the city of Ereḫ in southern Babylonia, with fourteen pointed oval seal impressions each with adjacent inscription. Dated to the 81st year of the Seleucid Era, 231 B. C. Size: 9 × 10,1 × 3,02 cm. Auction: Friday, 22nd May, 1981 → Sotheby’s 1981, no. 58.

Literature

Christie’s 2014: Christie’s Antiquities, Thursday 4 June 2015, New York. FRAYNE 1990: Douglas R. FRAYNE, Royal inscriptions from Mesopotamia, Old Babylonian Period (2003–

1595 BC) (RIME 4), Toronto. GRAYSON 1987: Albert K. GRAYSON, Assyrian rulers of the third and second millennia B. C. (to 1115 B. C.),

Toronto. GRAYSON 1991: Albert K. GRAYSON, Assyrian rulers of the second millennia B. C., vol. 2, Toronto. GORNY u. MOSCH 2013: GORNY u. MOSCH. Gießener Münzhandlung GmbH. Auktion Kunst der Antike, 18.

Dezember 2013, Nr. 218, Gießen. HILPRECHT 1898: H. V. Hilprecht, Business documents of Murashû sons of Nippur dated in the reign of

Artaxerxes I. (464–424 B. C.) (The Babylonian expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts 9), Philadelphia.

LANGDON 1905: Stephen Langdon, Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, Paris. Sotheby’s 1960: Sotheby’s. Catalogue of fine Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Assyrian and Celtic antiquities, 11th

April, 1960, London. Sotheby’s 1961: Sotheby’s. Catalogue of fine Egyptian, Near Eastern, Greek and Roman antiquities, 27th

March, 1961, London. Sotheby’s 1970: Sotheby’s. Catalogue of Egyptian, Western Asiatic, Greek, Etruscan and Roman antiquities,

Islamic pottery and metalwork, African, Oceanic and Indian art. The property of the Right Hon. the Earl of Lonsdale and other owners. Auction Monday, 18th May, 1970, London.

Sotheby’s 1973: Sotheby’s. Catalogue of Egyptian, Western Asiatic, Greek, Etruscan and Roman antiquities, ancient glass and jewellery, Islamic and Isnik pottery. Auction 9th July 1973, London.

Sotheby’s: Sotheby’s. Catalogue of antiquities and Tribal art, Tibetan, Nepalese, South-East Asian and Indian art. The property of various owners. Auction Monday, 22nd December, 1975, at 10.30 a.m., London.

Sotheby’s 1978a: Sotheby’s. Catalogue of antiquities and tribal art also Islamic, Indian, Nepalese, Tibetan and South-East Asian Art. The Property of Mrs. Stella Pitt-Rivers from the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Dorset, and other owners, Monday 27th February, 1978, at 11 a.m. and 2.30 p.m., London.

Sotheby’s 1978b: Sotheby’s. Catalogue of antiquities and tribal art, Islamic, Indian, Nepalese, Tibetan and South-East Asian art. Auction Monday 18th December, 1978, at 11 a.m. and 2.30 p.m., London.

Sotheby’s 1978c: Sotheby’s. Important Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Western Asiatic Antiquities. Auction Thursday, December 14, 1978, New York 1978.

Sotheby’s 1979: Sotheby’s. Catalogue of Antiquities and primitive works of art, Islamic, Tibetan, Nepalese, Indian and South-East Asian art. Auction Monday, 17th December 1979 at 2 p.m., London.

Sotheby’s 1981: Sotheby’s. Fine Classical, Near Eastern and Egyptian antiquities. York Avenue Galleries, Friday, May 22, 1981, New York.

Sotheby’s 1988: Sotheby’s. Egyptian, Greek, Etruscan, Roman and Western Asiatic antiquities and Islamic works of art. Auction Wednesday, June 15, 1988, at 10:15 am and 2 pm, New York.

Sotheby’s 1989: Sotheby’s. Egyptian, Greek, Etruscan, Roman and Western Asiatic antiquities and Islamic works of art. Auction Friday, June 23, 1989 at 10:15 am and 2 pm, New York.

Sotheby’s 1990: Sotheby’s. The Breitbart Collection of Ancient Glass, Egyptian, Western Asiatic and Classical antiquities. Auction Wednesday, June 20, 1990, New York.

Sotheby’s 1991: Sotheby’s. Egyptian, Greek, Etruscan, Roman and Western Asiatic antiquities and Islamic works of art. Auction Tuesday, June 18, 1991 at 10:15 am and 2 pm, New York.


– 96 –

Sotheby’s 1994: Sotheby’s. Thursday, 8th December, 1994 at 10.30 am and 2.30 pm in the Colonnade Galleries, 34–35 New Bond Street, London, London.

Sotheby’s 2007: Sotheby’s. Egyptian, Classical and Western Asiatic antiquities, including property of the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, New York.

Sotheby’s 2008: Sotheby’s. Egyptian, Classical and Western Asiatic antiquities, including property from the collection of Denys Sutton and property from the collection of W. Arnold Mejer. Auction in New York, Wednesday 10 December 2008, 2:00 PM, New York.

Sotheby’s 2014: Sotheby’s. Egyptian, Classical and Western Asiatic antiquities. Auction in New York, 12th December 2014, 2:00 PM, New York.

THEIS 2017: Christoffer THEIS, Cuneiform Tablets from Various Auctions – Part I: The Third Millennium B. C. up to the beginning of the Third Dynasty of Ur, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2017/62, S. 116–118.

THEIS 2021: Christoffer THEIS, Cuneiform Tablets from Various Auctions – Part II: The Third Dynasty of Ur, in: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2021/9, S. 16–20.

Christoffer THEIS <[email protected]> Universität Leipzig (GERMANY)

Abonnement pour un an/Subscription for one year: FRANCE 30,00 € AUTRES PAYS/OTHER COUNTRIES 40,00 € – Par carte de crédit (et Paypal) sur la boutique en ligne de la SEPOA

By credit card (and Paypal) through our online store http://sepoa.fr/?product_cat=revue-nabu

– Par virement postal à l’ordre de/To Giro Account: Société pour l’Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien, 39, avenue d’Alembert, 92160 ANTONY. IBAN: FR 23 2004 1000 0114 69184V02 032 BIC: PSSTFRPPPAR

– Par chèque postal ou bancaire en Euros COMPENSABLE EN FRANCE à l’ordre de/By Bank check in Euros PAYABLE IN FRANCE and made out to: Société pour l’Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien.

Les manuscrits (WORD & PDF) pour publication sont à envoyer à l’adresse suivante : Manuscripts (WORD & PDF) to be published should be sent to the following address:

[email protected] Pour tout ce qui concerne les affaires administratives, les abonnements et les réclamations,

adresser un courrier à l’adresse électronique suivante : [email protected]

Directeur honoraire : Jean-Marie DURAND Rédactrice en chef : Nele ZIEGLER

Secrétaire d’édition : J.-M. ROYNARD N.A.B.U. est publié par la Société pour l’Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien, Association (Loi de 1901) sans but lucratif

ISSN n° 0989-5671. Dépôt légal : Paris, 03-2022. Reproduction par photocopie Directeur de la publication : D. Charpin

NABU2022-1-01 09 marges

Documents

Transcript of NABU2022-1-01 09 marges